- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: Industry specification for registry interface
by Chris O'Donoghue 10 Nov '98

10 Nov '98

>Actually I thought I might get some interest from those providers who are >seeking to drive down administration costs through automation, but clearly >there are none lurking here. Must still be plenty of margin in the access >business! > I have some interest in this but I think like a few others we just pulled our heads in, while you and Patrick had your wee tiff. Regards Chris --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

10 Nov '98

Andy Linton wrote >If the point of your seeking NZNOG input is to politicise this group, to >make >NZNOG into a political football to push 2Day Internet's or your own >personal >agenda, then I want no part. Actually I thought I might get some interest from those providers who are seeking to drive down administration costs through automation, but clearly there are none lurking here. Must still be plenty of margin in the access business! regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

10 Nov '98

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

1 0

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

10 Nov '98

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

2 1

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

10 Nov '98

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

1 0

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

10 Nov '98

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

1 0

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

10 Nov '98

Patrick Obrien wrote:- >I've just been forwarded this note seeking your input for changes that Peter >wishes to make to his applications. Sorry, but thats not what I said. I post it again below:- >>Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common >>industry >>specification My interest is contributing our experience and resources into a specification which can benefit the entire industry. >From Domainz standpoint, I would ask that if you know of areas of weakness, or >areas that you wish to improve, then you draw up a list to forward them >directly to me. We think our time and that of other providers would be better spent on working together to come up with a specification. It would be helpful if a technical resource from Domainz could be made available to participate. >Clearly we are continually looking at improvements to the process, and any >thoughts that you do have, we would like to harmonise them inside our own >development priorities where sensible. What has become clear to us as your largest billing customer and manager of nearly 10% of commercial domains in NZ, is that whilst you say you are interested in improvements for the benefit of Internet providers, your delivery has been woefully inadequate. Sorry Patrick, but I for one do not believe a word you say. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

10 Nov '98

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

1 0

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

10 Nov '98

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

1 0

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

10 Nov '98

We are looking to improve our automated application which interfaces with Domainz. Whilst what we have does work, there is plenty of room for improvement. Is this group interested in working with us to identify a common industry specification which Domainz can use to improve the design of its system? regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

04 Nov '98

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

3 2

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

04 Nov '98

Frank March wrote: > ..... We would just need a day, place and time to be > agreed and a willing host. We could happily do 10-15, get a bit cramped beyond that. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/> Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

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

04 Nov '98

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

1 0

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

04 Nov '98

Sue Leader wrote (in part) > we wish to offer NZNOG members some alternatives to discuss. > 2. Attend only the "Who Inherited NZgate? Certainly, where do I apply? > 3. We are happy to facilitate a pre-Forum 'NZNOG and interest parties' gathering. Also an excellent suggestion, the time frame allowed in the forum (1.5 hours) doesn't sound adequate to me. This is a complex subject. > 4. It may be possible to set up a lunchtime round-table "closed door" session for NOG's on > the day to talk through issues. This also sounds like a good idea, given sufficient attendance by such worthies. Hopefully agreement on a course of actual action can be obtained > If travel costs are one of the problems for attendance....... No, there are other things I can do in Wellington in the pm and I'll come to the AGM. A generous and pleasing offer though. Personally I think this is an excellent offer and certainly demonstrates the type of leadership I was looking for. A cheque for my membership sub is in the mail Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/> Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

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

04 Nov '98

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

1 0

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

04 Nov '98

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

2 1

Re: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Joe Abley wrote: >I think a better heading would be: > What can be done about the legacy of NZGATE-delegated addresses within NZ? Ongoing portability of IP addresses. An open discussion on this subject is IMHO an excellent idea but the proposed forum is a) not about this topic, b) it is buried in the following all day programme * Pornography and Other Nasties: Are the ISPs Liable? * Internet Governance: The Future of the DNS * Who Owns Netgate? Portability of IP Addresses * Ethics on the Internet * Does the Internet Need Government? * ThinkQuest: Announcing ISOCNZ as National Partner for ThinkQuest International which I certainly have no desire to sit through, and c) there's a charge to attend. So, while the need for a discussion (and action) is clear, (no pun intended) I have reservations as to this being the right forum for the discussion. Peter Mott wrote: >I think the Internet provider industry needs to be able to speak with a single voice. We can can achieve this by:- > a) seizing the opportunity to grow ISOCNZ by joining up real quick or > b) forming our own industry association sooner rather than later I know a number of people in the Internet community share my reservations about ISOCNZ and have as a result avoided membership. However I think this is a clear opportunity for ISOCNZ to show leadership and, if they do, I for one would be prepared to "get in behind". Otherwise it's got to be option b) and that's probably a lot more painful. Some suggestions for the sort of leadership could be: 1. Change the subject to something more appropriate (Joe's suggestion looks good) 2. Fix a time for the discussion 3. Formally invite (write to? OK e-mail) industry players and ask them to send a rep 4. Treat it as an opportunity to show value for ISOCNZ membership (i.e. show value and we'll join) 5. Call for and distribute some papers in advance (again Joe's kick off paper makes a great starting point) 6. Drop the charge other than for direct expenses (if it's to be in Wellington we have costs enough to incur) How about it ISOCNZ? Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/> Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Apologies for the incomplete version sent previously, a slip of the fingers. Groan! Jim Higgins wrote: > Clearly, Robert has a much better solution, which he is keeping from us > at the moment - but I'm sure he will reveal all when he is ready. You give me too much credit I only wish that it were true. Regrettably my motives are much more prosaic. I'm hoping to save myself from sitting through a number of items to which I have nothing to contribute so that I don't miss what I hope will be the 'main event' and in the process save myself $80/$130. Thus far the only 'real' agenda for a forum I can find is on the isocnz web site under Eventz but is for December 96 (can you believe). Can we have a time and a definitive subject for the session on IP addressing? A concession on the entry fee would help me feel better about it too. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/> Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Recall: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Robert Gray would like to recall the message, "ISOCNZ forum". --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Jim Higgins wrote: > Clearly, Robert has a much better solution, which he is keeping from us > at the moment - but I'm sure he will reveal all when he is ready. You give me too much creditI wish that were true, regretably my motives are much more prosaic. I'm hoping to save from sitting through a number of items to which I have nothing to contribute so that I don't miss what I hope will be the 'main event' and in the process save myself $80/$130. Thus far the only 'real' agenda for a forum I can find is on the isocnz web site under Eventz but is for December 96 (can you believe). If the subject is re is a don't really lot of Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/> Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Frank March 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

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

1 0

Re: ISOCNZ forum
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Jim Higgins wrote:- >Joe, I have the same reservations - in fact ISOCNZ is in no position to >do such a thing - even if it wanted to. We have however been asked, by >a number of ISPs and others to do 'something' about this issue and we >feel that trying to get the parties together in a non-threatening >environment is a good start. Have you made sure you have a well informed panel so some meaningful discussion can take place? If people are paying money to attend, then there will be an expecation that it will be a professional effort with industry participation. My attempts to find out who is participating so far have drawn a blank. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Colin Jackson 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Peter Mott wrote: >We cant progress an improvement in ISOCNZ by telling them to get their crap >together. It will happen when we all join up and make it into something we >can respect. Absolutely! If you'd like things done differently, the door is open. Come on in and DO it. Colin Jackson Chair, Admin Cttee. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: ISOCNZ forum
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

>> However, it is probably a good forum in which to make the issues more >>public. >Absolutely no issue but I think we would both like to see more action than >just publicity. I think we all need to stop saying ISOCNZ needs to do something. The reality is they are having a forum to which they are inviting people from all sorts of places. If we dont care about the possiblity of a blind leading the blind session, then we should do nothing. If on the other hand we want people to understand what the issues are really about, then we must be prepared to participate. We cant progress an improvement in ISOCNZ by telling them to get their crap together. It will happen when we all join up and make it into something we can respect. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

RE: ISOCNZ forum
by Robert Gray 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

On Mon, Nov 02, 1998, Joe Abley wrote: > If you're in Auckland, then it seems there is a bar in the Sky Tower that > will be showing the proceedings on television -- I have been told there is > no charge to attend the Sky Tower screening, other than the onerous > requirement to purchase drinks from the bar. A day spent in a darkened Sky Tower bar watching a broadcast with such riveting items as "Announcing ISOCNZ as National Partner for ThinkQuest" on television? What could I possibly have done that would deserve such an unspeakable punishment? > However, it is probably a good forum in which to make the issues more public. Absolutely no issue but I think we would both like to see more action than just publicity. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/> Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

ISOCNZ forum
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 01 Nov '98

01 Nov '98

Joe Abley wrote:- >Netgate is an operating name for a service of Telecom NZ. I don't think >there is any doubt that if anybody owns Netgate, Telecom NZ does :) Providers who connect to Netgate will know that its a Telecom NZ owned service. They get these regular peices of paper from them demanding money :-) However, most other folk may not know. Netgate, NZGATE, NZIX are words which get thrown around and I can see there is general confusion about what they mean. >Portability of addresses in general is a different issue (and one that is >rather clear-cut for new address allocations); however, it would certainly >benefit from wider exposure at the face-to-face as there is still much >confusion in the user community on this issue. There are more than a few people who believe they "own" address space, and that they have a right to have it routed to whereever they live. And then there are others who think they should be able to own address space so they can move between upstream providers without having to renumber. Can of worms people :-) >Notice I said "can" and not "should" :) I think we should always apsire to do what "should be done" rather than whats possible. It helps stretch our minds a little :-) regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- > --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

child pornography
by Joe Abley 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

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

1 0

[jabley: ]
by Joe Abley 31 Oct '98

31 Oct '98

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

1 0

Re: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by Mark Davies 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:15:29 +1300 > Does this mean that it will cost $130+GST to watch the action from the Sky > Tower? (what about the live MBONE feed? ;) No, its free from the Sky Tower. MBONE would be nice but you really need the infrastructure set up in advance and more or less permanent --- This of course would be a good thing in general. cheers mark --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: Paradise IP #
by Simon Blake 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Shane Cole wrote: > Hows the route manager project coming along? Fine - I'm just waiting on an ASN from APNIC - the route servers are all ready to rumba, but there isn't much point in setting everybody up to use private ASN, just to change later. Cheers Si -- Simon Blake simon(a)katipo.co.nz Katipo Communications +64 25 300 825 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

29 Oct '98

Interim programme below:- ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1998 FACE TO FACE "THE INTERNET - TOOL OR TOY?" THE ISSUES: * Pornography and Other Nasties: Are the ISPs Liable? * Internet Governance: The Future of the DNS * Who Owns Netgate? Portability of IP Addresses * Ethics on the Internet * Does the Internet Need Government? * ThinkQuest: Announcing ISOCNZ as National Partner for ThinkQuest International Followed by: * ISOCNZ Annual General Meeting WHERE: (e)Vision House, 282 Wakefield Street, Wellington AND: Live Broadcast** to the Altos Bar, Sky City, Auckland WHEN: Friday November 20 1998 8:30-3:30 - followed by AGM in Wellington at 4:30pm WHO: Anyone with an interest in the Hottest Issues on the Internet in 1998 ENTRY: Members: $80.00 + GST Non-Members: $130 + GST ** Conference Only regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

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

29 Oct '98

This list is an excellent idea. Top marks to the folk who kicked it off >Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the >elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal is >still available at >http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt . Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM? Sounds like an opportunity for industry players to get together and share views. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

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

29 Oct '98

Peter Mott wrote today: > Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion > on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM? This too is an excellent idea, is there a time set and do we need to register or anything? Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/> Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

29 Oct '98

>As someone who is almost certainly more familiar with ISOCNZ than I am, >what are your views? How do you see ISOCNZ participating or adding value >to this issue? My reply may be off topic, but you did ask the question, so here goes ... Today, I would say ISOCNZ is not in a very good position to add value to this issue or any other industry specific issue which may come along. I say that because, whilst ISOCNZ has the best intentions in the world, it has very view internet providers actively participating, and has a council which addresses issues and makes decisions on things they consider important to them at the time. It is therefore unlikely they can represent our industry particularly well for the time being. The move to run a forum on issues such as censorhip, ip addressing, and domain registration is a clear signal they want industry to participate. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. I think the Internet provider industry needs to be able to speak with a single voice. We can can achieve this by:- a) seizing the opportunity to grow ISOCNZ by joining up real quick or b) forming our own industry association sooner rather than later Whether NZNOG is a part of, or drives this initiative is a question for us all, but I suggest that action is required. Whilst the IP addressing issue can be seen in the context of engineering stuff for industry players to sort and agree on, there are things happening in much higher places than most of us care to live, the outcome of which may be industry loosing some ability to manage itself. The question of IP management is as vexed an argument as domain name management, except the stakes are much higher. As things evolve, the respect held for RFC's will erode, and so we will need to look for other ways to ensure issues which concern participants of this list can be addressed. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

29 Oct '98

This issue is of fundamental interest to anyone concerned with the commercial integrity and long term stability of the Internet in New Zealand. Therefore it a matter of concern to me in the policy capacity recognised in the sig below. Wearing a different hat, my association with ISOCNZ, there is a need for someone *representative of the Internet community as a whole* to take on responsibility for ensuring that the Internet is a stable and reliable platform for e commerce. Although ISOCNZ is not there yet, it does have that potential (see for example, David Farrar's vision statement http://www.dpf.ac.nz/isocnz/vision.htm; which I by and large support) Ideologically and practically, there is strong disinterest on the part of the Government to regulate any matter relating to the Internet. But I have been lead to believe that the IP address structure is of sufficient concern that, if there was any suggestion that the NZgate 'share' of the IP address space was at risk of monopoly 'capture' by any group which was not representative of the interests of the Internet users as a whole, the Government might take another look. I will be developing some of this at the Face to Face meeting on 20 November. So my comment on the question raised by Joe's most recent post, reproduced in full below is: who else, other than ISOCNZ? And if this is not 'value add' what would be of greater importance? This is also not a loaded question. :) Of course, we are looking at an operational issue. Although, in fact, we are looking at policy underlying an operational issue; that is governance, actually. Frank March Specialist Advisor IT Policy Group, Ministry of Commerce, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand Telephone: +64 4 474 2908; Fax: +64 4 473 7010 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley(a)clear.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 12:32 PM > To: 2Day Chief Enthusiast; Donald Neal; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand > > On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 12:01:17PM +1300, 2Day Chief Enthusiast wrote: > > This list is an excellent idea. Top marks to the folk who kicked it off > > > > >Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the > > >elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal > is > > >still available at > > >http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt . > > > > Are list participants aware ISOCNZ is planning a forum discussion > > on this topic in Wellington on Nov 20 prior to their AGM? > > > > Sounds like an opportunity for industry players to get together and > share > > views. > > Although there are commercial issues surrounding the use of NZGATE numbers > in networks today, the underlying motive for reform is the health of the > network - specifically, the advertisement of long-prefix routes. This > aspect > is clearly an operational issue, rather than one of governance -- and has > its roots in _global_ operational policy, rather than that of just NZ. > > As someone who is almost certainly more familiar with ISOCNZ than I am, > what are your views? How do you see ISOCNZ participating or adding value > to this issue? > > This isn't a loaded question :) I'm just interested. > > > Joe > > -- > Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 > Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ > > --------- > To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > where the body of your message reads: > unsubscribe nznog --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: NZGate Addressing Within New Zealand
by Donald Neal 29 Oct '98

29 Oct '98

Three weeks ago Joe Abley suggested to this list an approach to the elimination of addresses issued in small units by NZGate. His proposal is still available at http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt . Joe, do you have any plans to revise your proposal in the light of feedback you've seen since? - Donald Neal --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

NZNOG [off-topic]
by Joe Abley 27 Oct '98

27 Oct '98

Hi all, This is off-topic, although (I hope) of sufficient interest that I don't get engulfed in anti-spam hate-mail :) A list has been in operation for some time now, hosted by the University of Waikato, intended as an open forum for the discussion of operational issues between network operators in New Zealand. The list's membership is not (currently) completely representative of all network operators in NZ, but currently has subscribers from (in the order that people have subscribed): CLEAR, NetGate, Netlink, ICONZ, Waikato University, Telecom NZ, Iprolink, National Library, Xtra, CityLink, OnTheNet, Paradise.Net, Saturn, Voyager, Ascend, Cisco, IHUG, Plain Communications, Tasman Solutions, Clearview, Globe Net, the Ministry of Commerce, Internet Exchange and Victoria University of Wellington. The list has proved useful for announcing transient network issues affecting other providers, arranging peering between networks, and more recently for discussions relating to IP numbering in New Zealand. This note is really just an attempt to widen the membership of the list, in case there are network operators who are not aware of it. A brief description of the list follows, courtesy of Donald Neal of Telecom NZ. Thank you for your time! Now - back to the main feature. --------- >From: Donald Neal <D1NC(a)telecom.co.nz> Subject: The New Zealand Network Operators' Group Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:10:27 +1200 The New Zealand Network Operators' Group The New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG) has neither a king, a president nor a formal membership. At present it consists of the subscribers to this mailing list, which anyone is free to join. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by an employee of Telecom NZ Ltd. Neither of these organisations (nor the administrator) is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 5.Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Mailing List Archives A full archive is available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/nznog/ To search the archive, see http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/search.html (and remember to select nznog). Digest Mailing List If you don't wish to receive postings as they are sent, you can instead subscribe to the nznog-digest mailiing list, on which all postings are sent out in a single "digest" every couple of days. Other Activities NZNOG does not at present have other regular activities than this mailing list, though some Auckland subscribers have been known to arrange meetings over beer. Donald Neal NZNOG Mailing List Owner/Administrator/Muggins --------- -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

27 Oct '98

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group The New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG) has neither a king, a president nor a formal membership. At present it consists of the subscribers to this mailing list, which anyone is free to join. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by an employee of Telecom NZ Ltd. Neither of these organisations (nor the administrator) is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 5.Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Mailing List Archives A full archive is available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/nznog/ To search the archive, see http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/search.html (and remember to select nznog). Digest Mailing List If you don't wish to receive postings as they are sent, you can instead subscribe to the nznog-digest mailiing list, on which all postings are sent out in a single "digest" every couple of days. Other Activities NZNOG does not at present have other regular activities than this mailing list, though some Auckland subscribers have been known to arrange meetings over beer. Donald Neal NZNOG Mailing List Owner/Administrator/Muggins --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Arrgh! READ ME
by Joe Abley 26 Oct '98

26 Oct '98

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

2 3

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

25 Oct '98

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

1 0

Re: ?
by Michael Newbery 22 Oct '98

22 Oct '98

Seems good to me. Is item 2 there explicitly to provide for the "it's Friday, let's go to the pub" postings? -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-915 5102 Mobile:021-642 957 Fax:+64-4-939 5100 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

None
by Donald Neal 21 Oct '98

21 Oct '98

NZNOG Subscribers, Below is a suggested Acceptable Use Policy, based on the one for the North American Network Operators' Group mailing list which I posted last week. I believe it accurately reflects the use of this list, but I'd like to hear any comments on it. Donald Neal NZNOG list owner/administrator/muggins ---------- Proposed Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 5.Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Robert Gray 21 Oct '98

21 Oct '98

>This is only one possible solution. This document is DRAFT. This document >does not attempt to define policy; it is merely intended to provoke some >useful discussion. I'd like to propose something of a variation to Joe's 'One Possible Solution' to the addressing issues. This is based on a little research and a selective interpretation of the following references: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-160.html <http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-160.html> Ripe-160: Guidelines for Setting up a Local Internet Registry at the RIPE NCC [and if you don't think this is relevant take a peek at http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/indices/NZ.html <http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/indices/NZ.html> ] http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-001.txt <http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-001.txt> ' Local IR's are of three types: 'Service Provider', 'Enterprise' and 'National'. An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organisation that supplies Internet connectivity to its customers or users. An ISP can become a local IR by agreeing to certain conditions (see APNIC-011). A 'National' local IR's handle all requests from organisations that have no connection to the Internet at present or planned. In addition, National IRs may also delegate addresses to ISPs within a national context. 'National' IR's are often run by a consortium of ISP's as a voluntary and neutral service to the community.....' http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-011.txt <http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/archive/apnic-011.txt> 'With respect to IP address 'ownership', service providers have the option of treating the sub-delegation of networks to customers as permanent or, if explicitly specified in the service provider's contractual agreement, temporary. It must be stressed that without a contractual agreement stating otherwise, assignment of networks to end users is always considered permanent (e.g., the 'ownership' of the network is transferred to the client).' The essence of the proposed variation is that instead of APNIC, a 'National' IR would be established in NZ (run by a consortium of ISP's as a voluntary and neutral service to the community). This 'National' IR to take over management of the NZGATE space for use as PI space for those who need it. This would not preclude any organisation obtaining space elsewhere. Clearly taking over the NZGATE space would require consent and co-operation from APNIC but with a broad based approach from NZ ISP's surely this would be possible? The following suggested changes to Joe's document are not intended to be complete and are also in draft form only. This is to give a general flavour, provide a basis for discussion and goes something like this: >2.3. Administrative control of NZGATE blocks returned to APNIC >All NZGATE-derived subnets not in use at the agreed time should be >returned to APNIC for administration. No further delegations from the >NZGATE blocks should be permitted by any NZ provider. All NZGATE-derived subnets not in use at the agreed time should be passed to the 'National' IR for administration. No further delegations from the NZGATE blocks should be permitted by any NZ provider. >2.4. Forced renumbering >No end-user network using NZGATE subnets should be obliged to renumber as >part of the normal course of their operation (but see [2.5] and [2.6]). No end-user network using PI (NZGATE) subnets should be obliged to renumber as part of the normal course of their operation (but see [2.5] and [2.6]) however an annual charge may be levied by the 'National' IR. [to act as a disincentive to retaining unused addresses and help cover costs]. >2.5. Process for extending address space delegations >Any end-user network which needs additional addresses due to growth should >be obliged to renumber with provider-based addressing in order to obtain >their larger address range. The released NZGATE addresses will be returned >to APNIC by the ISP. Any end-user network which needs additional addresses due to growth should be obliged to renumber with provider-based addressing (PA) in order to obtain their larger address range. The released PI addresses will be returned to the 'National' IR by the ISP. Any provider network which needs additional addresses due to growth should be obliged to renumber to an alternative PI range provided by the 'National' IR if a contiguous allocation cannot be provided to obtain their larger address range. >2.6. Process for managing ISP-hopping by end-user networks >Any end-user network that uses NZGATE numbers and decides to change ISPs >must renumber using provider-based addressing provided by the new ISP. The >released NZGATE addresses will be returned to APNIC by the former ISP. Any end-user network that uses PI (NZGATE) numbers and decides to change ISPs must renumber using provider-based addressing provided by the new ISP. The released PI addresses will be returned to the 'National' IR by the former ISP. >2.7. Process for managing ISP-hopping by national providers >Any national provider that uses NZGATE numbers and decides to change >global transit providers must renumber its own infrastructure using >provider-based addressing provided by the new global transit provider. >Customers of the national provider who use NZGATE numbers will not be >required to renumber (but see [2.5], [2.6]). Any national provider that uses PI (NZGATE) numbers and decides to change global transit providers will not be required to renumber (but see [2.5], [2.6]). I have retained the terms 'end user' 'national provider' and 'global transit providers' assuming I know what they mean but I think some form of definition would be in order. Constructive comments (and other responses) to the list please. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz <mailto:bobg(a)clearfield.co.nz> http://www.clearview.co.nz/ <http://www.clearview.co.nz/> Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

21 Oct '98

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

2 1

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 20 Oct '98

20 Oct '98

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

5 10

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

18 Oct '98

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

2 1

mail storm via 203.98.24.1
by Joe Abley 17 Oct '98

17 Oct '98

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

1 1

Re: mail storm via 203.98.24.1
by Norman Burgess 17 Oct '98

17 Oct '98

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

1 0

alcohol
by Joe Abley 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Apologies for the very beery nature of these messages. Just in case anybody turns up and wonders where all the free beer is, I won't be over at Galbraith's until shortly after 6. Note that this is not an implicit confirmation of the availabity of free beer :) -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

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

15 Oct '98

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

2 1