- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 15 Oct '98

15 Oct '98

Hi. Here is a table of OSPF advertisements at NZIX and BGP announcements in Europe, the AS number for the corresponding BGP advertisment as seen in Europe, and the first descr line in the APNIC database. It may give a good indication of the current use of NZGATE (and NZNIC) addresses. If the /16's are removed, would this represent (say within 20%) of the address space in use today? -Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 202.27.0.0/16 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.100.0/22 4768 Bell South Auckland 202.27.103.0/24 4768 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.104.0/22 7714 Nelson City Council 202.27.113.0/24 4648 Combines Rural Traders, Otago 202.27.115.0/24 4768 Bay of Plenty Polytech 202.27.119.0/24 4763 CEDENCO FOODS LTD 202.27.120.0/22 4768 Asia Pacific World Travel Ltd 202.27.120.0/24 4768 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.128.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.132.0/24 4648 Tip Top Ice Cream Company Ltd 202.27.138.0/24 4648 Telecom Mobile Communications 202.27.140.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.146.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.148.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.149.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.150.0/24 4648 Telecom Directories NZ Limited 202.27.151.0/24 4648 Telecom Directories Limited 202.27.156.0/22 4648 Telecom Online Service 202.27.16.0/20 4657 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd./Information Technology Division 202.27.160.0/24 4648 The Great Elk Company Limited 202.27.169.0/24 4648 Netway Communications Ltd 202.27.176.0/21 4648 Telecom Online Service 202.27.184.0/23 4648 Telecom Online Service 202.27.186.0/23 4648 NetAccess 202.27.192.0/24 4648 Madison Systems Limited 202.27.193.0/24 4648 IDG Communications Limited 202.27.194.0/24 4648 Hybrid Systems Limited 202.27.195.0/24 4648 New Zealand Dairy Foods 202.27.197.0/24 4763 New Zealand Microcomputer Club Inc 202.27.198.0/24 4763 Hypercom Communication Technologies Ltd 202.27.200.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.201.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.203.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.204.0/24 4648 NZNET Internet Services Ltd. 202.27.208.0/24 4648 Advanced Digital Business Solutions 202.27.209.0/24 4648 Telecom Business Systems 202.27.210.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.211.0/24 4763 Phillips Fox 202.27.212.0/24 4763 Kings College Auckland 202.27.213.0/24 4763 Pharos System Ltd 202.27.214.0/24 4763 MaC Consultants 202.27.215.0/24 4763 Citadel Computer Systems Ltd 202.27.216.0/24 4763 Building Information 202.27.217.0/24 4763 Datasure Management Systems 202.27.218.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.219.0/24 4763 I-Sys Training Services 202.27.222.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.223.0/24 4763 Show-Off New Zealand Limited 202.27.232.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.234.0/24 4648 Wickliffe Press Limited 202.27.236.0/24 4763 Howick Intermediate School 202.27.240.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.241.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.242.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.243.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.244.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.247.0/24 4763 Gisborne District Council 202.27.248.0/24 4763 Netbyte Internet Service Provider 202.27.250.0/24 4763 W. Stevenson & Sons Ltd. 202.27.251.0/24 4763 Harrahs Sky City 202.27.252.0/24 4648 Lion Nathan Limited 202.27.254.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.255.0/24 4648 Netway Communications Limited 202.27.34.0/24 7714 Marine-Air Systems Ltd. 202.27.40.0/21 7714 Fujitsu New Zealand Limited 202.27.54.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.60.0/22 4648 J.D. Edwards 202.27.64.0/22 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.66.0/24 7714 Bits & Bytes 202.27.68.0/24 7714 Government Within Reach 202.27.70.0/24 7714 Association Of University Staff 202.27.71.0/24 7714 Crown Institute Of Studies 202.27.72.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.76.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.78.0/23 7714 New Zealand Society of Accountants 202.27.81.0/24 4768 IT Communications Ltd 202.27.82.0/24 7714 Haines Recruitment Advertising 202.27.83.0/24 7714 NZ Products and Services 202.27.85.0/24 4648 Wanganui Polytechnic Internet 202.27.86.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.87.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.88.0/22 7714 Brooker's Ltd 202.27.92.0/22 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.27.96.0/24 4648 Tauranga District Library 202.27.99.0/24 4648 Health Research Council of New Zealand 202.36.0.0/16 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.103.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.110.0/24 4648 International Pacific College 202.36.111.0/24 4648 Whitcoulls Office Products 202.36.112.0/24 4648 Whitcoulls Ltd, National Office 202.36.113.0/24 4648 Whitcoulls School Supplies 202.36.114.0/24 7714 Diagnostic Laboratory 202.36.121.0/24 4648 Napier Computer Systems 202.36.122.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.123.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.124.0/24 4648 Shirley Boys High School 202.36.125.0/24 4648 Shirley Boys High School 202.36.134.0/23 4648 Horticulture and Food Research Institute Limited 202.36.137.0/24 7714 Ministry for the Environment 202.36.140.0/24 4648 OTC OFFICE SUPPLIES LTD. 202.36.141.0/24 7714 Wellington College of Education 202.36.147.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.148.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.149.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.150.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.151.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.152.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.153.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.154.0/24 7714 Manukau City Council 202.36.155.0/24 4648 TIMARU DISTRICT COUNCIL 202.36.157.0/24 7714 Genesis Research and Development Corporation Ltd 202.36.162.0/23 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.164.0/22 7714 Adis International 202.36.170.0/24 4768 EARTHLIGHT COMMUNICATIONS LTD 202.36.171.0/24 7714 CPS Systems (NZ) Ltd 202.36.173.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.174.0/24 4648 Ecolink Networking Service 202.36.175.0/24 4648 Northland Regional Council 202.36.178.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.179.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.181.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.192.0/22 7714 Computer Systems Implementation Limited 202.36.196.0/24 7714 General Automation 202.36.198.0/24 7714 Interconnect, Ltd. 202.36.202.0/24 4768 Business Computers Ltd. 202.36.204.0/23 4648 Actrix Networks Ltd 202.36.206.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.207.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.208.0/24 4648 Production Engineeering (New Zealand) Ltd. 202.36.209.0/24 4763 Internet Hawkes Bay Limited 202.36.210.0/24 2687 Worley Consultants Ltd 202.36.214.0/23 4805 Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council 202.36.218.0/24 4648 Allied Press Limited 202.36.220.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.221.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.224.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.226.0/24 4648 Internet Connectivity Associates 202.36.227.0/24 4768 Serious Information Services 202.36.229.0/24 7714 Sofrana Utilities 202.36.230.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.231.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.235.0/24 7714 CED Distributors Ltd 202.36.239.0/24 7714 I-Max 202.36.240.0/24 7714 Binary Brothers 202.36.244.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.245.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.251.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.252.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.28.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.29.0/24 7714 MAF Fisheries Marine Research 202.36.30.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.31.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.32.0/24 4648 Delphic Medical Systems Ltd. 202.36.33.0/24 7714 Television New Zealand 202.36.34.0/24 7714 Building Research Association of NZ 202.36.35.0/24 4740 Galen Group 202.36.36.0/22 4648 Internet Company of New Zealand 202.36.43.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.44.0/24 7714 Scientific Software and Systems Ltd. 202.36.45.0/24 7714 Eagle Technology Group 202.36.46.0/24 7714 Lynx Communications 202.36.60.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.64.0/22 4648 National Library of New Zealand 202.36.68.0/23 4648 Financial Systems Limited 202.36.7.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.70.0/24 7714 Kiwi BBS System 202.36.72.0/24 7714 NetLink network 202.36.75.0/24 4763 Tairawhiti Polytechnic 202.36.76.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.77.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.80.0/21 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.80.0/24 7714 GEAC Computers NZ Limited 202.36.83.0/24 4763 Com Tech (N.Z.) Limited 202.36.91.0/24 4768 Clearview Communications Ltd 202.36.94.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.95.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.95.128/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.36.95.64/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.37.0.0/16 4648 202.37.0.0/20 4648 The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand 202.37.0.0/20 7714 The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand 202.37.100.0/24 4648 Cave Rock Software Limited 202.37.101.0/24 4648 MacAccess 202.37.102.0/24 4648 Christchurch Schools 202.37.104.0/24 4648 Riccarton High School 202.37.105.0/24 4648 Riccarton High School 202.37.106.0/24 4648 Sirranet Ltd 202.37.107.0/24 4648 Sirranet Ltd 202.37.108.0/24 4648 Hindin Communications Ltd. 202.37.111.0/24 4648 Hindin Communications Ltd. 202.37.112.0/24 7714 PlaNet FreeNZ ISP 202.37.114.0/24 7714 Christ's College 202.37.116.0/24 4648 Piopio College 202.37.117.0/24 4763 Lynfield College 202.37.118.0/24 4763 West Auckland Education Centre 202.37.120.0/24 4648 Macpac Wilderness Equipment Limited 202.37.127.0/24 4648 Email-Centre 202.37.129.0/24 4648 E-VerNet Ltd 202.37.132.0/24 4740 CASystems 202.37.135.0/24 4740 Datamatic 202.37.137.0/24 4648 MegaDyne Communications Ltd 202.37.138.0/23 4648 MegaDyne Communications Ltd 202.37.140.0/22 4648 Geothermal Energy NZ LTD 202.37.144.0/21 4648 202.37.156.0/22 4768 Ciga Computers Ltd 202.37.160.0/24 4763 New Zealand Funds Management Ltd 202.37.162.0/24 4648 Designer Technology Limited 202.37.165.0/24 4648 New Zealand Trade Centre 202.37.166.0/24 7714 Diocesan School for Girls 202.37.167.0/24 4648 Worldnet BBS 202.37.168.0/24 4763 Worldnet BBS 202.37.169.0/24 4763 AGB Research NZ Limited 202.37.170.0/24 4648 Pacific Business Systems 202.37.171.0/24 4648 Financial & Media Services (NZ) Ltd, Auckland 202.37.173.0/24 7714 Diocesan School for Girls 202.37.176.0/23 4763 202.37.176.0/24 4763 Cypher Systems Ltd 202.37.181.0/24 4648 CORPORATE SOFTWARE NZ 202.37.182.0/24 4648 The Atlantean Connection Ltd 202.37.184.0/22 4648 Intermilk 202.37.188.0/22 4768 Southern InterNet Services Ltd 202.37.192.0/23 2687 Worley Consultants LTD 202.37.192.0/24 2687 Worley Consultants LTD 202.37.193.0/24 2687 Worley Consultants LTD 202.37.194.0/24 4648 Canuck Computer Services NZ 202.37.194.1/32 4648 Canuck Computer Services NZ 202.37.197.0/24 4648 Internet Company of New Zealand 202.37.200.0/22 4648 Internet Company of New Zealand 202.37.21.0/24 4648 Ministry of Forestry 202.37.218.0/23 4768 Enhanced Information Systems 202.37.222.0/24 4648 SEACOH Training Institute 202.37.223.0/24 4763 Pasadena Intermediate School 202.37.224.0/21 4648 Internet Company of New Zealand Wellington 202.37.23.0/24 7714 Ministry Of Agriculture 202.37.232.0/24 4648 New Lynn Database Limited 202.37.234.0/24 4648 Pearson Davis Ltd Advertising 202.37.235.0/24 7714 Diocesan School for Girls 202.37.236.0/22 4648 Telecom Internet Services 202.37.24.0/24 4648 Butterworths of NZ Ltd 202.37.240.0/23 4648 2Day Internet Limited 202.37.244.0/24 4648 202.37.245.0/24 4648 202.37.245.176/30 4648 202.37.245.180/30 4648 202.37.245.32/30 4648 202.37.245.40/30 4648 202.37.245.42/32 4648 202.37.248.0/24 4648 Meadow Fresh Foods 202.37.249.0/24 4648 Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited 202.37.250.0/23 4648 Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited 202.37.252.0/24 4648 Level 5, CMC Building, 89 Courtnay Place 202.37.253.0/24 4648 Molesworth House, 101 Molesworth Street 202.37.254.0/24 2687 Paxus House, Boulcott Street 202.37.27.0/24 7714 Electricity Market Company Limited 202.37.32.0/23 7714 Ministry of Education 202.37.42.0/24 4648 Southland Polytech 202.37.43.0/24 4648 Southland Polytech 202.37.44.0/24 4648 James Cook High School 202.37.45.0/24 4648 Netway Communications Ltd 202.37.48.0/24 4648 Datacraft New Zealand limited 202.37.49.0/24 4648 Datacraft New Zealand limited 202.37.50.0/24 4648 Datacraft New Zealand limited 202.37.51.0/24 4648 Datacraft New Zealand limited 202.37.52.0/24 7714 Ministry of Fisheries 202.37.54.0/24 7714 N.Z Telecommunications System Support Center Ltd 202.37.56.0/23 7714 A.J Park And Son 202.37.60.0/22 7714 Whangarei District Council 202.37.64.0/21 4763 NetLink network 202.37.64.0/24 4763 Auckland City Council 202.37.68.0/24 4763 202.37.69.0/24 4763 202.37.70.0/24 4763 202.37.71.0/24 4763 202.37.72.0/23 7714 202.37.74.0/24 4648 Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited 202.37.75.0/24 4763 Orion Systems Limited 202.37.76.0/24 4648 Optimation New Zealand Ltd 202.37.77.0/24 4648 InterNet Connectivity Associates Ltd 202.37.78.0/24 4763 Auckland 202.37.79.0/24 4648 Weta Internet Services 202.37.81.0/24 4648 Diagnostic Laboratory 202.37.84.0/24 4648 P&O Services (NZ) Ltd 202.37.85.0/24 7714 OSI Software Limited 202.37.86.0/24 4648 InterNet Connectivity Associates Ltd 202.37.87.0/24 4648 InterNet Connectivity Associates Ltd 202.37.88.0/24 4648 The University of Auckland (2nd) DMZ 202.37.89.0/24 4648 Northland Regional Council 202.37.93.0/24 2687 Honda NZ Ltd 202.37.94.0/24 4763 2Day Internet Limited 202.37.96.0/23 4648 Tait Electronics 202.37.99.0/24 4648 Christchurch School of Medicine 202.49.0.0/16 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.0.0/21 4648 Otago Polytechnic 202.49.0.0/21 4768 Otago Polytechnic 202.49.104.0/24 4648 SEACOH Training Institute 202.49.107.0/24 4648 Multimedia Systems Limited, Auckland 202.49.115.0/24 4648 Internet Southland 202.49.116.0/22 4648 Dunedin City Council 202.49.120.0/24 4648 Dunstan Software 202.49.121.0/24 4648 Internet Southland 202.49.122.0/24 4648 Apple Education Centre 202.49.125.0/24 4648 South Net Ltd 202.49.128.0/21 4768 BCL Ltd 202.49.136.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.137.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.140.0/24 7714 PlaNet Trust 202.49.141.0/24 4763 Kapiti Internet Services 202.49.143.0/24 4648 The National Bank. 202.49.144.0/24 4648 Glazier Systems Limited 202.49.148.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.149.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.151.0/24 4648 Avonside Girls High School 202.49.152.0/21 4648 Internet Access Service Provider 202.49.16.0/20 4768 Nelson Polytechnic 202.49.164.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.165.0/24 4763 PlaNet Hamilton 202.49.166.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.167.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.168.0/24 4648 EnterNet Online Limited 202.49.170.0/24 4648 Arron Scott Developments 202.49.172.0/22 4648 TV3 Network Services 202.49.176.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.177.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.178.0/24 4768 Wave internet services 202.49.179.0/24 4740 ARAC Enterprises Limited 202.49.180.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.180.64/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.0/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.128/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.192/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.181.64/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.183.0/24 4648 Brice Parker Consultants 202.49.184.0/24 4648 Applied Computers Ltd 202.49.185.0/24 4648 John Houlker Internet 202.49.186.0/24 4648 Efficient Software New Zealand Limited 202.49.186.0/28 4648 Efficient Software New Zealand Limited 202.49.187.0/24 4768 Earthlight Communications Ltd 202.49.189.0/24 4763 Pakuranga College 202.49.190.0/24 4648 National Library of New Zealand 202.49.193.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.194.0/24 7714 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.197.0/24 7714 Computer Systems Implementation Limited 202.49.198.0/23 4648 Wanganui Polytechnic - Internet 202.49.206.0/24 7714 The Laptop Shop Ltd 202.49.208.0/21 7714 Additional Class-C nets to support expansion of 202.49.224.0/22 4768 Serious Information Services 202.49.230.0/24 4768 Reed Publishing 202.49.233.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.240.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.241.0/24 7657 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.241.64/26 7657 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.242.0/24 7657 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.244.0/22 4648 The Internet Group in Northland 202.49.249.0/24 4648 Efficient Software New Zealand Limited 202.49.250.0/24 4648 Maximum Warp 202.49.251.0/24 4648 Stretton & Co. Limited 202.49.252.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.253.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.0/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.128/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.192/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.255.64/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.33.0/24 4768 Computer Systems Engineering (NZ) Ltd 202.49.34.0/23 4648 Hamilton City Council 202.49.36.0/24 4768 Waikato Development Foundation 202.49.39.0/24 4648 National Library of New Zealand 202.49.41.0/24 4648 Rural Education Activities Program 202.49.46.0/23 4768 Computer Systems Engineering (NZ) Ltd 202.49.48.0/24 4768 Rotorua District Council 202.49.50.0/24 7714 Matamata Piako District Council 202.49.58.0/24 4648 Kristin School 202.49.62.0/24 4763 Clearfield Consulting Ltd 202.49.63.0/24 4768 Wave internet services 202.49.64.0/21 4648 Plain Communications Ltd 202.49.72.0/22 7714 Teltrend NZ Ltd, Christchurch, New Zealand. 202.49.78.0/24 4648 Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited 202.49.79.0/24 4648 Doughty Group 202.49.80.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.81.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.82.0/24 4805 Massey University, Information Technology Services 202.49.84.0/24 7714 Hardcastle Electronics Ltd 202.49.86.0/24 4768 Ergo Finacial Services 202.49.88.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.112/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.12/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.124/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.132/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.156/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.224/27 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.32/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.33/32 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.36/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.88.8/30 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.89.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.89.0/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.89.128/26 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.90.0/23 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.49.92.0/22 4648 Nelson Planet Trust 202.49.96.0/21 4648 Bank Of New Zealand 202.50.0.0/16 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.0.0/23 4648 NZI Insurance Ltd 202.50.102.0/24 7714 ANSO Systems Ltd 202.50.103.0/24 4648 Random 202.50.104.0/22 4648 Tasman District Council 202.50.108.0/24 4763 Advanced Digital Business Solutions 202.50.111.0/24 4763 CA-Systems Limited 202.50.112.0/24 4768 Gough Technology Group 202.50.114.0/24 4763 Advanced Digital Business Solutions 202.50.117.0/24 4768 Skope Industries Ltd 202.50.121.0/24 4648 Stimulus (NZ) Ltd. 202.50.124.0/22 4648 PlaNet (NZ) Nelson 202.50.129.0/24 4648 Ministry of Defence 202.50.130.0/23 4768 Wattie Frozen Foods 202.50.137.0/24 7714 Chelmer Treasury Solutions Ltd. 202.50.139.0/24 7714 Datastor (NZ) Ltd. 202.50.162.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.164.0/24 4763 Magicians BBS Network 202.50.165.0/24 4648 Accident Rehabilitation Compensation and Insurance Corporation 202.50.167.0/24 4648 THENETTD 202.50.169.0/24 4648 Eastern Southland Internet 202.50.170.0/24 4648 Business Internet Solutions 202.50.171.0/24 4648 Inet Co Ltd 202.50.177.0/24 4768 Quantum Internet Limited 202.50.178.0/23 4768 Planet(NZ) Timaru 202.50.185.0/24 2687 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.186.0/24 2687 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.188.0/22 4768 Wave internet services 202.50.196.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.197.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.198.0/24 4648 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd 202.50.199.0/24 4648 Landcare Research Limited 202.50.200.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.201.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.202.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.203.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.204.0/24 4648 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd 202.50.205.0/24 4648 Landcare Research Limited 202.50.206.0/24 4648 Crop Research Limited 202.50.207.0/24 4648 Crop Research Limited 202.50.208.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.209.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.210.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.211.0/24 4763 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.212.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.213.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.214.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.215.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.219.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.220.0/24 4648 Crop Research Limited 202.50.221.0/24 4648 Dynix Automated Library Systems 202.50.222.0/24 4648 Crop Research Limited 202.50.223.0/24 4648 Raewyn & Trudy's System including 202.50.244.0/24 4648 Power Beat International Limited 202.50.246.0/24 4648 ems.co.nz 202.50.252.0/24 7714 Eastern Institute of Technology Hawke's Bay 202.50.253.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.254.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.255.0/24 4648 The Internet Group 202.50.255.0/28 4648 The Internet Group 202.50.255.128/25 4648 The Internet Group 202.50.255.32/27 4648 The Internet Group 202.50.49.0/24 4648 Swichtec Power Systems Limited 202.50.52.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.53.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.54.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.55.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.57.0/24 4648 Coal Research Limited 202.50.6.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.64.0/21 4648 PlaNet (Manawatu) Community Company Ltd 202.50.72.0/24 4648 Gateway Polynesia 202.50.73.0/24 4648 Brierley Investments Limited 202.50.75.0/24 4648 Netway ZM Service 202.50.78.0/23 4648 Southpower 202.50.80.0/22 4648 Telecom Internet Services (previously Online Services) 202.50.84.0/24 4648 Publish Media New Zealand 202.50.85.0/24 4648 Moore Business Forms and Systems Limited 202.50.87.0/24 4648 Circle International 202.50.9.0/24 4648 NZ Gate National Service Provider 202.50.90.0/24 4648 Southland Polytechnic 202.50.92.0/24 4648 RealENZ Limited 202.50.94.0/24 4648 SUNSHINE Online 202.50.95.0/24 4763 Creative cGi Ltd 203.96.0.0/20 6831 Pronet Limited 203.96.112.0/24 4648 Deep South Networks Ltd 203.96.117.0/24 4648 Owens Services B.O.P. Ltd 203.96.118.0/24 4648 CADS (Auckland) Ltd 203.96.119.0/24 4648 World-Net Limited 203.96.120.0/23 4768 The National Business Review 203.96.120.0/24 4768 NZGate Aggregate Networks 203.96.123.0/24 4648 ComNet Technologies Limited 203.96.125.0/24 4648 Dilworth School. 203.96.126.0/24 4648 WorldNet ISP 203.96.128.0/19 4768 Globe.Net Comms, 203.96.130.0/24 4768 NZGate Aggregate Networks 203.96.144.0/20 9345 Paradise Net Ltd, 203.96.16.0/20 9343 Pronet Limited 203.96.192.0/19 4768 wave internet services 203.96.32.0/21 6831 Pronet Limited 203.96.40.0/21 9325 Pronet Limited 203.96.48.0/20 9343 Pronet Limited 203.96.64.0/19 4648 Netway Communications Limited 203.96.92.0/22 4648 Telecom Online Service 203.96.96.0/19 4648 NZGate Aggregate Networks 203.96.96.0/20 4648 Telecom Online Service 203.97.0.0/17 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.0.0/22 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.10.0/24 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.11.0/26 4768 Face 203.97.11.144/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.148/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.152/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.156/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.160/29 4768 Face 203.97.11.168/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.172/30 4768 Face 203.97.11.192/26 4768 Face 203.97.12.0/23 4768 Air New Zealand 203.97.128.0/17 7714 Netlink 203.97.133.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.135.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.136.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.139.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.14.0/24 4768 Bell Gully Buddle Weir 203.97.143.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.147.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.15.0/27 4768 ESR 203.97.15.128/26 4768 ESR 203.97.15.32/27 4768 ESR 203.97.15.64/27 4768 ESR 203.97.15.96/27 4768 ESR 203.97.151.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.154.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.16.0/22 4768 Plexus Communications 203.97.163.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.164.0/24 4768 NetLink 203.97.165.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.182.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.191.241/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.192.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.199.0/24 4768 NetLink 203.97.20.0/23 4768 Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind 203.97.200.0/23 7714 Netlink 203.97.203.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.207.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.210.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.215.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.216.0/23 7714 Netlink 203.97.218.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.22.0/24 4768 Pacific Networks 203.97.222.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.223.0/24 4768 NetLink 203.97.227.0/24 4768 NetLink 203.97.23.0/24 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.128/29 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.136/29 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.144/28 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.160/28 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.176/28 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.192/27 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.23.224/27 4768 Buddle Findlay 203.97.230.0/24 4768 NetLink: RNZFB Hamilton 203.97.235.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.24.0/24 4768 PACIFIC 203.97.240.0/23 7714 Netlink 203.97.242.0/24 7714 NetLink 203.97.25.0/24 4768 Advantage International 203.97.250.0/23 7714 Netlink 203.97.250.0/24 4768 Clearview Communications 203.97.250.0/24 7714 Clearview Communications 203.97.26.0/24 4768 Guardian Assurance 203.97.27.0/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.128/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.160/28 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.176/28 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.192/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.224/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.32/28 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.64/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.27.96/27 4768 TMP Worldwide 203.97.28.0/22 9325 SineSurf 203.97.32.0/21 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.4.0/24 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.40.0/24 4768 Contact Energy 203.97.41.0/24 4768 PACIFIC 203.97.42.0/24 4768 Plexus Communications 203.97.43.0/25 4768 Frontier Technology 203.97.43.144/29 4768 Frontier Technology 203.97.44.0/24 4768 TITAN 203.97.45.0/24 4768 Wellman 203.97.46.0/24 4768 Webmasters 203.97.47.0/24 4768 Tech Tonics 203.97.48.0/21 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.5.0/24 4768 Computer Science Applied Research Centre 203.97.56.0/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.112/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.128/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.144/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.160/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.176/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.192/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.208/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.24/29 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.240/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.32/29 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.40/29 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.48/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.64/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.80/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.56.96/28 4768 Team Comtext 203.97.57.0/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.112/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.128/29 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.136/29 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.144/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.16/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.160/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.176/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.192/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.224/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.240/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.32/29 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.40/29 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.48/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.64/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.80/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.57.96/28 4768 Good Health Wanganui 203.97.58.0/24 4768 Citylink Peering 203.97.58.8/29 4768 Citylink Peering 203.97.59.0/24 4768 LINZ 203.97.6.0/23 4768 New Zealand Online Ltd 203.97.60.0/23 4768 Plexus Communications 203.97.62.0/25 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.128/27 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.160/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.176/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.192/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.208/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.224/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.62.240/28 4768 TRADENZ 203.97.63.0/24 4768 FRST 203.97.64.0/20 4768 Taranaki Polytechnic 203.97.8.0/23 4768 Earthlight Communications Ltd 203.97.80.0/22 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.80.0/24 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.81.0/24 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.82.0/24 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.83.0/24 4768 Southern Internet Services Ltd 203.97.84.0/24 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.85.0/24 4768 PACIFIC 203.97.86.0/24 4768 PACIFIC 203.97.87.0/24 4768 Bay City 203.97.88.0/24 4768 Renaissance Ltd 203.97.89.0/24 4768 Philips Fox 203.97.90.0/24 4768 Philips Fox 203.97.91.0/24 4768 Harding Computer Services 203.97.92.0/29 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.144/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.16/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.160/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.176/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.192/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.208/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.224/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.240/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.32/29 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.48/28 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.8/29 4768 Securitas 203.97.92.96/27 4768 Securitas 203.97.93.0/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.104/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.112/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.120/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.128/25 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.16/28 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.32/28 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.48/28 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.64/26 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.64/28 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.8/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.93.96/29 4768 CLEAR Communications Ltd 203.97.94.128/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.144/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.160/29 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.168/29 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.176/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.192/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.208/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.224/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.240/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.32/28 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.64/29 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.94.96/27 4768 CLEAR Net Wellington RAS Network 203.97.95.0/24 4768 AEP Filmpac 203.97.96.0/19 4768 Auckland Internet Exchange ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- 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 Michael Newbery 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

>>>> Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> - 10/14/98 6:24 PM >>> >On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 05:42:38PM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote: >> >> Do people, when they move house, get pissed at telecom that they >> can't alway take their phone number with them? Is telecom being >> unreasonable here? > >They will, actually, as long as your new connection is off the same >exchange. Funnily enough, this is a matter that Saturn is very aware of :-|. Yes, they do, and yes, they are. At least, within the same local area. Just to be awkward, consider a cell phone number. The cell networks are set up to divorce indentity from locality. Landline telephone networks are less well set up, but still capable. In fact the situation is much as for IP---the exchanges have to maintain lookup tables that say "send *this* number *there*", rather than using rule based routing. Where IP and the telephone system differ is that this cost is incurred only at call setup (which is why TCNZ's current policy is iniquitous) whereas IP routes individual packets. But that's what caches are for. Back to the subject at hand. Back when we set up the VUW network, we had about 12 (from memory) machines set up using an invalid IP network 'plucked from the air'. This was before the private address ranges. When we got our class B (where we argued that although we did not have more than 254 machines, we would some day. Try that now :-). I recall the pain in moving. For only 12 machines. When I got here I found (invalid) IP addresses hard coded in all sorts of unfortunate places. Most had been set up by 3rd party equipment suppliers. Some were due to lazy (and IP-unaware) programmers. The point I am making is: Do NOT underestimate the pain caused by IP renumbering. Now that everyone and his dog is using IP, all sorts of pieces of equipment you might not expect have addresses buried deep with in them, and 18 mo down the track this fact is unknown to the current keepers of the key. -- 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

1 0

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Hi Robert, Thanks for the excellent perspective on this issue. I'll only make a few comments. > 3. New entrants should not be disadvantaged (as they would be if we have one > set of rules for NZGATE addresses) and should also be able to obtain > provider independent addresses on terms no less attractive than existing > operators enjoy. For entrants who expect to need a reasonable amount of address space, there is little difference. The situation for those needing less is, unfortunately, difficult because small blocks of newly obtained addresses are unlikely to be routable. However, new entrants may be able to use NATs or otherwise build their systems to allow easy renumbering. The main problem for existing users is that changing can be difficult, expensive, and not commercially viable because few had anticipated a need to ever have to renumber (and the systems to make this easy were not available then). > 4. Incentives to corporates in particular to relinquish unused addresses This is an excellent idea. Perhaps all the incentives are already there (improved security, portability, future proofing, shorter outages from route flapping, etc). Perhaps we put together a readable document on the subject and distribute it widely. Providing incentives is certainly a much better approach than trying to coerce people into migrating -- and maybe we could get corporates to migrate without moving (resulting in more migration). > One of the elements missing here in NZ is the idea of a Local Internet > Registry, see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-159.html (which is kind of what > I thought NZGATE was). I think lots of others did too, including APNIC. -Craig --------- 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 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Hi. > Who do you propose will pay the end users for the pain and real costs > involved? The ISPs have the easy part of this renumbering. I don't see > people renumbering because it's the right thing to do. They'll do it > because they have to e.g. when they move ISP. But if they have a /24 they don't have to. What this group is attempting to do is impose costs on the end users only if they try to move ISPs. It's a great way to lock up your clients. There is no technical reason to make users renumber when they move (just as there is no strong reason to make everyone move for the sake of moving). Getting everyone to migrate seems to be a goal, but yet by making users renumber only when they move, you will slow movement and thus migration. Importantly, the current proposal is not workable. The first client whose renumbering exercise is expensive will likely seek an injuction against any provider attempting to enforce these ideas. The balance of convenience would favor the end user and not the provider (who will suffer zero or no loss or convenience as a result of the end user not renumbering). In the case of an ISP, web hosting company, or business which depends on the Internet (and that's a good percentage of them now), not changing providers may not be a viable option. By opening the door with an N month grace period you are only showing everyone that it's technically possible but that you don't want to do it for commercial reasons. Restrictions on portability have never been _introduced_ anywhere else for _historical_ IP addresses. Half the root name servers are running on /24s -- every wonder why that is? I see no real benefit here -- we will still have ISPs moving these addresses around for years to come (the proposal rightly allows for that) -- what reason makes routes for ISPs look any different than routes for end users? How about we just agree to ask clients with NZGATE number to renumber on moves (we have a form/statement we all agree to give them), but eliminate any requirement to renumber)? -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 4

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Robert Gray 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Clearly this subject has provoked some very considered discussion on the subject of address portability. For those interested RIPE-127 (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-127.html) provides a useful and lucid dissertation on the subject and offers a number of sensible recommendations. To selectively quote "All early Internet address space assignments were provider independent. Many assignments made by ISPs are also formally provider independent because they lack the clear prior understanding between ISP and customer that the assignment will end with the termination of the service." On the historical side regarding NZGATE I personally believe this is the key issue, i.e. unless you were told the space was not portable then it is. This however begs the question of how best to organise for the future. We are not an ISP in the accepted sense as we do not offer connectivity except as part of an overall package. We are however a significant user of IP addresses for web and mail servers. Joe's possible solution and the discussion so far causes us some concern. Having recently been through the process of re-numbering and implementing NAT it proved a major undertaking and one I would hesitate to repeat. We made a number of errors resulting in outages for our clients and irritation to our suppliers and I am at a loss to see how these could have been avoided. Hopefully with NAT now in place we would make it a little easier however the number and scope of DNS changes, firewall changes, authentication changes and the fact that these must occur in one 'hit' makes it commercially pretty unacceptable. With today's firewalls/proxy servers there should be no issue for even large corporates to renumber over time, given incentive to do so. IPv6 should give this if no other reason. Smaller providers however are faced with significant problems in re-numbering which although they may seem small time are in fact relatively expensive and difficult for such an operator to overcome. We now have an example where one of our clients has been enticed by the offer of a /24 by another ISP with NZGATE addresses to burn, something we are unable to provide. I have to say that I consider this sort of behaviour seriously unethical. For me, key elements of a solution are: 1. Access providers should not be able to hold downstream operators to ransom by withholding IP addresses and forcing such users to renumber if they move. 2. The solution should offer all existing ISP players long term access to the provider independent IP addresses they need to do business. In other words a level playing field. 3. New entrants should not be disadvantaged (as they would be if we have one set of rules for NZGATE addresses) and should also be able to obtain provider independent addresses on terms no less attractive than existing operators enjoy. 4. Incentives to corporates in particular to relinquish unused addresses One of the elements missing here in NZ is the idea of a Local Internet Registry, see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-159.html (which is kind of what I thought NZGATE was). To quote again "Local IRs are typically operated by ISPs and serve the customers of those ISPs as well as the customers of smaller ISPs who are connected to the rest of the Internet through the larger ISP." Seems to me that a Local IR might be really useful. If I can contribute a beer sounds like an excellent scheme. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)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

NZNOG Acceptable Use Policy
by Donald Neal 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

NZNOG Subscribers, Below is the Acceptable Use Policy of the North American Network Operators' Group mailing list. I suspect in may be about time this list acquired such a policy, though possibly without quite so many dire warnings. It is indeed true that this list is not a cartel of any kind, and IP renumbering is clearly relevant, but it may be a good idea to have some sort of policy in place before it is needed rather than afterwards. In the absence of any feedback to this posting I intend to suggest to list subscribers the adoption of a policy bearing some resemblance to what appears below. Donald Neal NZNOG list owner/administrator/muggins ---------- Charter The NANOG mailing list is established to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that require cooperation among network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, the list will now be governed by the following guidelines: Acceptable Use Policy 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as described in the charter of NANOG. 2.Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. 5.Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Individuals who violate these guidelines will be contacted personally and asked to adhere to the guidelines. If an individual persists in violating the guidelines, the convenor of NANOG, Merit Network, Inc., will take action to filter the offender's messages to the list. If groups of individuals persist in introducing topics that are outside the charter of NANOG, the convenor will send a request to the entire mailing list requesting adherence to the guidelines. If the discussion continues unabated, the convenor will take action to filter all postings on the topic. --------- 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 Warwick GLENDENNING 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Its not a problem for the University as such but those distals buying traffic from us who currently have NZgate address blocks. As yes we make very good use of our class B address. Regards Warwick *********************************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA Dip.Mgt.St. Network Services Manager Information and Technology Services University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton, NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax:07-8384066 mobile: 025-356121 email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 1998 15:17 To: Warwick GLENDENNING Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ Warwick GLENDENNING wrote: > > I disagree as an end customer of the ISP's and currently planning to migrate > to Clear I would prefer to see a migration period of 3 months. > > Regards > Warwick > Surely the University of Waikato has it's own /16 prefix from the "good old days" (tm) and as such won't be affected by the above problems. If they have space over and above that then they should be encouraged to get dispose of that ASAP. -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- 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 NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Hi. > I have prepared a VERY DRAFT paper in an attempt to clarify the situation > regarding IP addresses delegated historically by NZGATE, and to describe > one possible approach for bringing the current situation into line with > current policies of provider-based addressing. I must say i'm slightly confused about the rationale here. Has Telecom issued a "renumber or move to us decree"? Or is it just that they are advertising the NZGATE CIDR blocks? If they are pushing "renumber or move to us" then we should seek a legal opinion on the matter. I sincerely doubt that where a class C was issued to an NZ company with the understanding that they could move providers (and many were as this was accepted practice in 1994), that Telecom could claim any right of use whatsoever. >From the client's point of view, the restrictions suggested on the use of NZGATE addresses are not a good thing. Many of these addresses were assigned before provider based addressing was in vogue, and it's seems strange now that we should attempt to impose these restrictions and force renumbering (on moves) on networks which may wish to use NZGATE addresses in the provider independent fashion in which they were issued (a fair percentage of NZ companies connected to the Internet in NZ in 1995 had their own class C for the sole purpose that could take it with them). It is not a myth that rights or ownership _of_use_ of a Class C issued via Waikato in 1994 belongs to the company to whom it was issued. This was standard practice at the time. I'm not aware of US or European IP addresses that were, subsequent to the introduction of provider based addressing, forcibly aggregated under a single provider, nor had the conditions on which routing would be allowed revoked. The current practice of portability of NZGATE addresses is fair and fits with international practice. Any attempt by Telecom or a consortium of ISPs to limit portability is not a good thing, even if current practice now is for IP addresses to be most often issued in a non-portable fashion. To sumarise: 1) provider based addressing was not widely practiced in 1994. 2) companies obtained class C's from Waikato in that and subsequent years with the understanding that they were portable. 3) there were no distinctions between which addresses were in provider blocks and which weren't in those early years. 4) now that we have provider based addressing, it does not make sense to assume that all the old IP addresses belong to a particular provider. 5) now that we have provider based addressing, it does not make sense to impose any new limitations on IP addresses obtained earlier. Such addresses may easily require the same portability as is now required of provider blocks. 6) Neither Telecom's (alleged) ideas nor the draft's suggestions fit accepted international practice for historically assigned IP addresses. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

6 10

RE: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Warwick GLENDENNING 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

I disagree as an end customer of the ISP's and currently planning to migrate to Clear I would prefer to see a migration period of 3 months. Regards Warwick *********************************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA Dip.Mgt.St. Network Services Manager Information and Technology Services University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton, NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax:07-8384066 mobile: 025-356121 email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 1998 14:54 To: Joe Abley Cc: Craig Anderson; jclark(a)puck.clear.net.nz; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ Joe Abley wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:29:25AM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote: > > > > 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. > > Thanks for the vote of confidence (I think ;) > > There are both technical and commercial reasons for wanting to tie the > issue down, and I mentioned both in the "issues" section in my original > message. > > > 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". > > We will need APNIC buy-in, and I agree with Chris that a migration period > can be helpful, as long as it is enforced (i.e. enforcable). I agree on a migration period as well but I think 6 months is much too long. Consider the scenario where several /22 networks change to use another provider over the 6 month period. This could result in large amounts of space being unavailable. I doubt whether APNIC would be well disposed to issue more space in this case. I'd suggest that a maximum period of two months would be a better time scale. I also believe that the 'receiving' ISP needs to make it clear to their new customer that this time scale must be adhered to. Presumably we can all agree that once we get people working from provider based blocks then the playing field is level and that renumbering is no longer such a barrier to migration. Customers need to understand that one of the costs involved in moving will be renumbering. I've currently got these networks: 203.97.128.0/17 202.37.0.0/20 202.27.40.0/21 202.49.208.0/21 202.27.64.0/22 202.27.92.0/22 202.27.104.0/22 202.36.164.0/22 202.36.192.0/22 202.37.60.0/22 202.49.72.0/22 202.27.70.0/23 202.27.78.0/23 202.27.82.0/23 202.36.32.0/23 202.36.44.0/23 202.36.162.0/23 202.36.244.0/23 202.37.32.0/23 202.37.56.0/23 202.37.72.0/23 202.27.34.0/24 202.27.68.0/24 202.27.88.0/24 202.27.100.0/24 202.27.128.0/24 202.36.29.0/24 202.36.34.0/24 202.36.46.0/24 202.36.60.0/24 202.36.70.0/24 202.36.72.0/24 202.36.76.0/24 202.36.80.0/24 202.36.114.0/24 202.36.137.0/24 202.36.141.0/24 202.36.154.0/24 202.36.157.0/24 202.36.171.0/24 202.36.173.0/24 202.36.196.0/24 202.36.198.0/24 202.36.224.0/24 202.36.229.0/24 202.36.235.0/24 202.36.239.0/24 202.36.240.0/24 202.36.251.0/24 202.36.252.0/24 202.37.23.0/24 202.37.27.0/24 202.37.52.0/24 202.37.54.0/24 202.37.78.0/24 202.37.85.0/24 202.37.112.0/24 202.37.114.0/24 202.37.166.0/24 202.37.173.0/24 202.37.235.0/24 202.49.50.0/24 202.49.84.0/24 202.49.86.0/24 202.49.140.0/24 202.49.193.0/24 202.49.194.0/24 202.49.197.0/24 202.49.206.0/24 202.50.102.0/24 202.50.137.0/24 202.50.139.0/24 202.50.164.0/24 202.50.252.0/24 --------- 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

2 1

Re: NZNOG Acceptable Use Policy -Reply
by Donald Neal 12 Oct '98

12 Oct '98

Jamie, Discussion of beer in general terms is philosophical. Discussion of specific applications of beer is operational. And the more network service providers the beer is to be applied to, the more operational it is. :{)* - Donald >>> Jamie Clark <jclark(a)puck.clear.net.nz> 14/October/1998 04:25pm >>> Hmmm... On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Donald Neal wrote: > Acceptable Use Policy > > 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as > described in the charter of NANOG. > 2.Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. > 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. > 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack > of respect for other participants are prohibited. > 5.Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. > 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Is Beer an operational issue or is it of philosphical nature? Technically speaking, of course. -Jamie --------- 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

Beer
by Joe Abley 12 Oct '98

12 Oct '98

So are we going for beer on Friday or not? To avoid any confusion this is directed at people in Auckland. Readers elsewhere (including those who have absconded to the Dark Side of the Tasman and have Sold Their Souls to vendors) can make their own arrangements :) -- 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 NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 11 Oct '98

11 Oct '98

Hi. > Craig, all of the recent (post 1996) RFCs and IETF drafts that I have seen > make it clear that address portability is inconsistent with having a > routable Internet. The regional registries all have policies to > reduce route table fragmentation by migrating organisations to provider > addressing. I'm suggesting we attempt to address historical address portability where it was rightfully assumed and that we do not attempt to force migration. Also clarification of the "ownership" of the NZGATE addresses would seem to be in order as there seems to be some dispute and confusion there. > I think Joe pretty much assumed that ISPs were aware of the potential > problems with portability. If any of the major upstream providers of the > New Zealand providers begin to filter small advertisements (say, smaller > than /20) then a lot of NZ organisations with "portable" addresses > could potentially be cut off from the rest of the world. This is pretty unlikely. It would cut off major and important sections of the Internet, including most root name servers. Sprint unilaterally began filtering longer prefix routes several years ago but not those in ranges in use prior to widespread discussion of provider blocks (i.e. they have never filtered out NZGATE prefixes shorter than or equal to /24). Also, routing table growth has slowed because of the introduction of CIDR, the use of provider based addressing, and (proxy) aggregation. Routing table growth for the past three years (~1.7x) has been much slower than router CPU and memory growth and this trend is likely to continue. With it becoming increasingly easier to handle all routes, such action is now unlikely for technical reasons. The dampening used by some providers does tend to cause /24's to incur longer blocking than a /20 would as a result of flapping. But beyond this it's hard to see any potential problems with the portability of the NZGATE addresses (and many are in blocks larger than a /24 anyway). > You can be sure that many of these small routes are not carried globally > and only have connectivity because the origin of the supernet routes gets > the traffic close enough to a provider that doesn't filter. For NZGATE addresses, i do not believe this is factual. In addition to my general moaning, the draft specifically penalises many older ISPs (by making the addresses of their servers non-portable) does not address multi-homed use, and does not provide exceptions where portability is reasonable. How about policies based more roughly around these ideas: Those who obtained addresses directly from Waikato with the legitimate understanding they were portable should be treated as portable (/23 or shorter automatically qualifies). Addresses obtained from an ISP are not portable and should not be advertised by another ISP (except by agreement). No provider is allowed to advertise supernets that overlap another providers advertisements (except by agreement). -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 7

NZGATE addressing within NZ -Reply
by Donald Neal 08 Oct '98

08 Oct '98

Problems in getting small allocations advertised have been foreseen for years. Are we actually at the stage where we're seeing international carriers refuse to advertise anything, say, below a /18? - 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

NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Joe Abley 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Hi all, I have prepared a VERY DRAFT paper in an attempt to clarify the situation regarding IP addresses delegated historically by NZGATE, and to describe one possible approach for bringing the current situation into line with current policies of provider-based addressing. 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. >From some informal conversations on the subject it would seem that there is a widespread interest in eliminating the ambiguity that has existed on this topic, and in agreeing a strategy to allow a transition to provider- based addressing to proceed as rapidly as is practical. Please distribute this document as widely as you care to. Comments, criticism, flames and threats back to the list please, so everybody can enjoy them :) Thanks to Andy Linton and John Houlker for useful feedback and comments on earlier, even more primitive drafts. Note that any factual errors or ommisions on this history of the NZ internet are mine. The spelling mistakes are all Andy's fault, however :) Copies are available at http://www.patho.gen.nz/~jabley/nznumber.txt 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- IP Addresses delegated from "NZGATE" in use within New Zealand 1. The problem 1.1. Overview RFC2050 documents the best current practice for address delegation for the global Internet. It imposes a framework of restrictions driven by a growing scarcity of globally-unique IP addresses and a need to summarise or aggregate routing advertisements globally to keep the Internet running reliably. The history of the Internet in New Zealand includes, at an early stage, a single domestic provider known as "NZGATE". This provider was facilitated by the University of Waikato, with international connectivity to NASA. Initially, NZGATE provided the sum total of international Internet connectivity for New Zealand. The regional authority for IP address allocation, APNIC, delegated a number of address ranges to NZGATE [3.1]. Early entrants to the Internet community in New Zealand, obtaining transit through NZGATE, were delegated address space out of these blocks according to the guidelines set down by APNIC and, indirectly, IANA. NZGATE faded out of existance in 1996 [3.2]. Since that time additional providers have added global internet transit using dedicated international circuits to their portfolio of products, including (in no particular order) Netway, IBM, CLEAR, IHUG, Telstra NZ and Voyager. Most of these participants have obtained address delegations directly from an appropriate regional registry, as they are diversely connected and don't favour a single provider for "default routing". Newly-connected customers of these transit providers (be they end users or resellers, i.e. ISPs) have been delegated address space by their providers, from the blocks delegated to those providers from APNIC, according to RFC2050. If these customers change providers, they are obliged to return the address delegations to their old provider, and obtain corresponding new ranges from their new provider. 1.2. Issues 1.2.1. Stability and RFC2050 It is extremely important from a technical standpoint that provider-based aggregation and delegation is adhered to for all customers who do not meet the criteria for operating under addresses delegated directly from APNIC. 1.2.2. Impact on end-users Renumbering can be an expensive exercise for some end users, especially those whose networks have evolved for some years. In the early days of the Internet in New Zealand, provider-based addressing was not part of the network design. Provider-based addressing first came under discussion as a solution to problems of scale, and only gradually moved from being a radical departure from good practice to an accepted reality. The evolutionary nature of this change was good in the sense that the impact could be somewhat tuned to the timeline of the allocations and expectations, but was bad in the sense that the moving situation added to the complexity and uncertainty. Many established end-user networks were built without the expectation that the IP addresses delegated to them were tied to a particular provider. Now that provider-based addressing is widely recognised as best current practice and is required by the regional registries, the requirement to renumber upon changing provider is still widely misunderstood. It is worth noting that there was no way that NZGATE (or any other ISP at the time) could solve all the issues of address portability raised by the addressing policy changes sweeping across the internet. Many NZGATE-numbered end-users may already have changed providers without renumbering, reinforcing the unfortunate myth that the NZGATE addresses they are using are still inherently portable, and "owned" by them. Although some providers now include clauses in their customer contracts underlining the point that addresses delegated as part of service delivery must be returned at the end of the contract, this is by no means universal, and the myth of "customer-owned IP addresses" lives on. It is imperative going forward that the concept of provider-based addressing and the non-portability of most network numbers is widely publicised amongst end-users. 1.2.3. Impact on national providers For ISPs that obtain global transit through other providers, and who have not arranged address delegations directly from APNIC, renumbering may be just as onerous as for end-users. Additionally national providers may supply end-users for whom renumbering is expensive, and the associated inconvenience mentioned in [1.2.2] is cumulative. 1.2.4. Competitive advantage There has been a misconception within the NZ Internet community that Netway communications (and, latterly, NetGate/Telecom NZ) assumed the NZGATE role by providing connectivity to the Waikato network in early 1996, and by virtue of this fact the addresses delegated by APNIC to NZGATE are now, by proxy, effectively delegated to Telecom NZ. This does not appear to be a view held by others involved in the "transition" [3.2]. More accurately, for a time Netway was the sole provider to NZGATE, and hence also to all downstream networks of NZGATE. This situation soon changed, with other providers bringing international transit to NZGATE subscribers, and NZGATE slowly faded out of existance leaving end-user networks direct customers of the new international providers. It is not at all obvious that any single provider can lay legitimate claim to operational responsibility of the NZGATE blocks. The effective use of these addresses as "portable" between providers over the past few years is not compatible with a delegation model whereby it is acceptable for NetGate customer networks to use them, but not acceptable for a customer of another provider. In effect, an expectation has been raised by Telecom NZ that customers who have been happily numbered under NZGATE addresses (and have used a variety of ISPs for some time) are now faced with a choice of (a) renumber, or (b) change providers to NetGate/Xtra. Due to the operational cost of renumbering, this gives Telecom NZ competitive advantages over other ISPs based on the contentious belief that Telecom has assumed operational responsibility for the NZGATE address blocks. Many address ranges delegated from the NZGATE blocks, although well documented at the time, have since been unofficially "transferred" to other operators, or are not currently in use. Hence documentation of the current state of NZGATE delegations is out-of-date. The operational responsibility for the NZGATE address blocks, when coupled with a lack of documentation for past delegations is, in fact, a hindrance to Telecom NZ, as it makes strict compliance with APNIC policy for the delegation of additional address blocks far more difficult. 1.3. Unified approach It is in the interests of all providers within NZ that a solution to the problems outlined in this document be found. It is also important that no single provider is seen to be responsible for what may be seen by end-users as restrictions, or inconvenient changes of policy. By taking a unified approach to the problem with a policy document agreed by the majority of New Zealand providers, the risk of confusion is minimised and the chances of productive user education are increased. It is proposed that the unified policy be agreed as an operational exercise within the provider community, by the usual open discussion within the NZNOG forum. 2. One possible solution 2.1. Overview The proposed solution attempts to minimise the risks discussed in [1.2], whilst providing a clear migration path towards full provider-based addressing within New Zealand. 2.2. Rationalisation of historical NZGATE delegations A list should be generated (and published) documenting subnets of the NZGATE blocks [3.1] which are in use at some agreed time. All blocks being so-used should be documented. If the sections of the NZGATE blocks in use by Telecom/NetGate/Xtra infrastructure (and not by end-users of Telecom/NetGate/Xtra) are conveniently contiguous, it will make sense to re-designate those blocks as delegated to Telecom rather than "NZGATE". On the other hand, if it transpires that the NZGATE blocks are overly fragmented to make this impractical, Telecom should approach APNIC for a further, distinct address delegation. 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. To enforce this, providers in NZ may apply route filters to prevent the use of non-approved NZGATE address ranges. 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]). 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. 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. 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]). 3. References 3.1. Netblocks delegated historically to NZGATE-NZ The addresses concerned have all been delegated from within the NZGATE-NZ networks as recorded at APNIC, which are described as: netname: NZGATE-NZ descr: NZ Gate National Service Provider descr: Component of University Of Waikato descr: New Zeland The netblocks currently assigned to NZGATE-NZ are: inetnum: 202.27.0.0 - 202.27.255.255 inetnum: 202.49.0.0 - 202.49.255.255 inetnum: 202.50.0.0 - 202.50.255.255 inetnum: 202.36.0.0 - 202.37.255.255 inetnum: 203.96.0.0 - 203.97.255.255 The netblock 203.96.0.0 - 203.97.255.255 is perhaps erroneously attributed to NZGATE-NZ here - in fact, this block was delegated to an APNIC confederate member, NZNIC, operated by the University of Waikato. NZNIC no longer operates [3.2]. 3.2. Transition of NZGATE services to other providers The following message outlines the events surrounding the transition of international internet transit from NZGATE to other providers in early 1996, as recalled by John Houlker of Waikato University (quoted with permission). From: John Houlker <john(a)waikato.ac.nz> To: ccc_rex(a)waikato.ac.nz, "'Joe Abley'" <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Cc: asjl(a)netlink.co.nz, Jamie Clark <jclark(a)clear.co.nz>, Roger Hicks <rhicks(a)clear.co.nz> Subject: RE: [jabley(a)clear.co.nz: NZGATE-NZ] Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:38:45 +1200 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Joe > I would be very interested to hear your views on my original e-mail, which > is attached; in particular relating to Brett Telfer's comment, quoted in > the Herald: > > "Netgate service specialist Brett Telfer says most of the Waikato > University provided IP addresses passed to the Telecom subsidiary when > it took over the running of NZ Gate in late 1995." > > It was my understanding that NZ Gate had ceased to exist in its former > role, rather than being subsumed into Telecom? Telecom (i.e., Netway) did not "take over" NZGate, but nor did NZGate instantly "cease to exist" (such a step was simply not possible). Netway did become NZGate's supplier for a significant period while NZGate gradually reduced out of existence (I believe this started in January 1996). At the time NZGate shut down its international links this was phased with the introduction of commercial providers offering international capacity at the NZIX, but it was a complex transition with Telecom and Clear only slowly coming to grips with international IP services, and NZGate clients only slowly working out what they should do. The NZGate international circuit contracts came up to expiry in January 1996 (and we were in no position to renew for a further 12 months) and the NASA "PACCOM" access was supposed to cease in February 1996 (in the event it didn't, but we could not count on further access to the NASA FIX-WEST gateway beyond that date). We were not in a position, however, to disperse all the NZGate customers to direct supply from the newly establishing commercial suppliers (Clear made a late start with limited bandwidth, pricing was still under negotiation, all this was proving harder for the new entrants than they expected). Indeed we were asked to keep NZGate going to give our clients more time to sort out alternatives. As a result NZGate continued as a reseller, i.e., an intermediate IP provider, and we bought our international supply from Netway (our only option at the time). The University network "Kawaihiko" ceased being a customer of "NZGate" and moved to buy directly (also from Netway). As you know, somewhat later Kawaihiko took the considerably more complicated step of "multi-homing", buying from Netway and Clear in parallel (and later again, also from Telstra). In this way Netway "inherited" the NZGate address blocks as they were at that time - since they became suppliers to the remains of NZGate, and Kawaihiko (and they later picked up the then "CRINET" and AgNet as well). I would be interested in your comments, I haven't seen the Herald article, but it does sound like there are sites that don't yet know the implications of moving provider. In terms of the old blocks of former NZGate addresses it could indeed be most useful to get special treatment from the APNIC to allow greater flexibility in on-going devolution of the original NZGate group. As things stand Telecom have no option but to comply with APNIC requirements on efficient use of address space (this does not apply to the "NZNIC confederation" space that Waikato allocated to ISPs - in an attempt to assist portability - i.e., 203.96.0.0/15, which is entirely independent. Whether or not the APNIC would agree to a special approach here, it seems there may be existing customers of Telecom (or of ISPs using Telecom) who aren't yet aware of the portability issues. If not, perhaps some publicity drive out of Telecom and/or perhaps NZNOG contacts could spread the word. I asked Jim Higgens if ISOCNZ has good contacts to spread information to ISPs but I gather that (especially given the demise of ISPANZ) NZNOG may be the best shot. John 4. Contributors Joe Abley, CLEAR Communications Ltd <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> John Houlker, Waikato University <j.houlker(a)waikato.ac.nz> Andy Linton, NetLink Communications Ltd <asjl(a)netlink.co.nz> 5. Document History $Log: nznumber.txt,v $ Revision 1.4 1998/10/08 09:23:46 jabley Some further clarification Revision 1.3 1998/10/08 09:01:42 jabley Modifications following comments from jhoulker Revision 1.2 1998/10/08 00:22:36 jabley minor typo corrected as pointed out by wellingtonian pedant Revision 1.1 1998/10/07 13:01:32 jabley Initial revision --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Route servers on Citylink (WIX)
by Simon Blake 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Hi Folks For the last couple of months I've had a linux box running the MRT route daemon as an experimental BGP route server, with links between a few organisations on Citylink who were happy to participate in a trial. The main aim of the experiment was to consider ways that Citylink connected organisations with BGP capable routers but without AS numbers might exchange routing data, so that they can send data directly between each other, without having to go through one (or several) ISP routers. As a rudimentary route server, MRT seems to work really well (it lacks some of the RIPE tools of the Merit RA, but on the other hand, it compiles under Linux :-). We ended up setting up MRT to peer with the organisations who had AS numbers, and then setup all the other routers in AS number 65502 (chosen at random) as static routes within MRT, and redistributed them into BGP. Turn off synchronisation on the routers in AS65502, and everything seemed to work as advertised (this is speaking from memory, I haven't looked at it for about 6 weeks). Citylink is now at the stage where we've got customers pestering us to incorporate them into the system, and a management itchy keen to take some money off of these people. So I guess what I'm after from the list is some opinions on whether this is a good idea, and I'm on the right track. Obviously, for this to be more than a toy I need the ISP's on Citylink to participate in such an exchange, so recommendations on making it easier for them to be involved are welcome. Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 5

Re: Route servers on Citylink (WIX)
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Hi. > The main aim of the experiment was to consider ways that Citylink > connected organisations with BGP capable routers but without AS numbers > might exchange routing data, so that they can send data directly between > each other, without having to go through one (or several) ISP routers. Don't ICMP redirects handle this just fine? There are legitimate security reasons for disabling these, but has anyone actually disabled them, or asked clients to disable them? I've never really had the feeling that anyone was very concerned about security on Citylink (i could be wrong) anyway. If we have ICMP redirects do we actually need BGP between anyone except ISPs and other multiply connected organisations? Can't we use layer 3 ethernet switches (and possibly monitoring) to greatly improve security in general, lessen the risks with responding to ICMP redirects, and thus address this issue much more easily? -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

4q98 in-addr.audit notice #2
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 01 Oct '98

01 Oct '98

Hello, This is the second notice for this audit run. I am sorry for duplicates that you may receive. This is to let you know that I will be starting the next quarter sweep of the in-addr.arpa tree on 03 oct 1998 UTC. Thats about 8 hours from now. I'd appreciate it if you would review http://www.isi.edu/div7/people/bmanning.home/in-addr-audit.html for details. Specifically, I'd appreciate your adding the two referenced probes to your xfernets directives so that a valid audit may proceed. The run may take as long as 600 wall-clock hours. The results will be posted to the web page. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. If there are others that you feel should be aware, forward the information on to them and/or me. Thank you for your consideration. --bill (call before you dig) manning --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

WIX interface - full- or half-duplex?
by Joe Abley 27 Sep '98

27 Sep '98

Should we be running our WIX-facing interfaces half- or full-duplex? We are using 10baseT from the CNHL-supplied media converter... 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

4q98 in-addr.audit notice
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 24 Sep '98

24 Sep '98

Hello, I am sorry for duplicates that you may receive. This is to let you know that I will be starting the next quarter sweep of the in-addr.arpa tree on 03 oct 1998. I'd appreciate it if you would review http://www.isi.edu/div7/people/bmanning.home/in-addr-audit.html for details. Specifically, I'd appreciate your adding the two referenced probes to your xfernets directives so that a valid audit may proceed. The run may take as long as 600 wall-clock hours. The results will be posted to the web page. A target for this audit run is to attempt to identify DNS version distribution. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. If there are others that you feel should be aware, forward the information on to them and/or me. Thank you for your consideration. --bill --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

MX'ing to 127.0.0.1
by Simon Blake 24 Sep '98

24 Sep '98

Hi Folks Over the weekend some fairly disreputable types in the US sent a whole pile of spam out with fake From: lines which resolved to a server I administer in Wellington. Since the hostname in question (city.wellington.net.nz) has no users and doesn't actually receive any legit email, my first response was to MX it to a spare IP# on our network so that I didn't have to deal with the many (~100K) bounce messages. Upon further reflection, in occured to me that an even better technique for avoiding traffic bills would be to MX city.wellington.net.nz to 127.0.0.1, which I did, and all my spam problems have gone away :-). My question - is this a dodgy thing to do, have I missed some critical reason why I shouldn't do this? Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 15

Re: MX'ing to 127.0.0.1
by Michael Newbery 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 02:11:09PM +1000, Dean Pemberton wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 03:56:42PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 03:38:16PM +1200, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > > > > Unless the remote site happens to have a machine on their internal > > > > network, reachable by their mail relay, numbered 10.99.98.97 :) > > > > > > 0 chance of having that. (Statistically speaking, allowing for > > > rounding errors). > > > > Guess we're right off the end of the bell curve then :) How about... > > > > 127.0.0.2? > > 'fraid not - there are devices that use 127.0.0.2 as a valid address. To paraphrase the Hitchiker's Guide: "this is some new meaning of the term 'valid' with which I was hitherto unacquainted" I guess what you REALLY want to do is locate the address used by the spammers and MX that. ;-) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Regional ISP Operations lists
by John Houlker 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

Hi all I have had an enquiry about e-mail lists in New Zealand for ISP operations, with the idea of adding these to a compilation of such lists for the region. The results will be posted on NANOG. It seems to me that NZNOG is a good candidate. What do you think? Would you like NZNOG added to such a list? By the way, NZNOG currently allows posting from "non-members". Are there other NZ ISP operations lists that should be included in such a compilation? John --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 4

Re: http://www.wix.net.nz/
by Michael Newbery 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

It's Friday---I can tell :-) --------- 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: http://www.wix.net.nz/
by Dean Pemberton 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

>Is it just our cache, or does http://www.wix.net.nz/ point at a page entitled >"Wellington Tramping and Mountaineering Club"? > > >Joe Nope it's not you - it seems to look that way from here too. I hope it's not a hint that we should all get out more =) Dean (In his new life as a vendor) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 4

http://www.wix.net.nz/
by Joe Abley 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

Is it just our cache, or does http://www.wix.net.nz/ point at a page entitled "Wellington Tramping and Mountaineering Club"? 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

3 2

{0, 1}.7.202.in-addr.arpa
by Joe Abley 18 Aug '98

18 Aug '98

Is someone going to take control of these in-addr.arpa zones? They're currently pointing to various strange places: 0.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 35450 NS elrond.otago.ac.nz. 0.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 35450 NS rata.vuw.ac.nz. 0.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 35450 NS gemini.dcc.govt.nz. 1.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 81072 NS gemini.dcc.govt.nz. 1.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 81072 NS elrond.otago.ac.nz. 1.7.202.in-addr.arpa. 81072 NS rata.vuw.ac.nz. These nameservers are (reasonably enough!) not responding to queries on these zones. This makes my traceroutes messy, and we can't have that ;) 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 1

Trouble at NZIX
by Joe Abley 04 Aug '98

04 Aug '98

Hi, We just had a bit of router trouble at NZIX, which should now be fixed. If you've got a minute, could you check connectivity to some well-known CLEAR Net or other CLEAR customer addresses, just to make sure our advertisements are getting through? 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/

1 1

Re: Another Beer?
by Rowan Smith 28 Jul '98

28 Jul '98

I'll be their... I spoke to several people today who all expressed interest as well. I guess it will be a reasonable turn out. -Rowan -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: Chris Wedgwood <chris(a)cybernet.co.nz>; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 3:51 PM Subject: Re: Another Beer? On Wed, Jul 29, 1998 at 03:48:51PM +1200, Chris Wedgwood wrote: -> On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 05:37:13PM +1200, Joe Abley wrote: -> -> > -> Shall we say Wednesday next week? The 29th? At that same pub? -> > -> What was it called? -> > -> > Galbraiths. -> -> OK - who's still on for this? I will be popping in, but probably not staying for too long... -> (Oh, btw some evil people should learn to emtpy their voice mail...) I emptied it yesterday. It's not my fault I'm a popular guy :) -- 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

3 2

Another Beer?
by Rowan Smith 28 Jul '98

28 Jul '98

It must time for another beer (or four) ? Shall we say Wednesday next week? The 29th? At that same pub? What was it called? How does this sound to people? -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 6

Possible IP addresses for WIX
by Rex Croft, 07 838 4597 18 Jul '98

18 Jul '98

Hello. I have seen the discussion of the need for routable IP address space for connections to WIX. Or at least address space that no one else is using. While Waikato University ran the NZGate service we had several customers renumber and return their old IP address space to us. I never actually got arround to informing Internic, so I now have some class Cs that I know are unused. Looking through my "IP to delete" mail folder I found: Dunedin City Council 202.7.0.0 - 202.7.1.0 This was returned to us years ago. Please feel free to use this address space for WIX. (Do let me know if you decide to use it, so that I don't return it by accident in the distant future.) - Rex Croft --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 11

NZIX Switch Changeover
by Warwick Glendenning 06 Jul '98

06 Jul '98

Dear NZIX Customers, The University of Waikato is replacing the single Cisco CAT 5000 NZIX switch with two fully redundant Cisco WS-2926 switches. The planned date for this cutover is Sunday 26 July at 0400 hours. The outage time will be 2 minutes. This new installation enables the University to rapidly restore the NZIX switch service should the primary switch fail. The installation of two switches also enables ISP's to dual home their routers to the NZIX switch provided they have a suitable repeater installed. ISP routers that are not dual homed will be manually patched to the backup switch in the event of a fault. If any ISP isn't dual homed and wishes to be dual homed please contact me for a quote. Contact points for enquiries: Warwick Glendenning 07-8384363 Dennis Su 07-8384183 After hours 026-3504645 Thanks and best regards Warwick **************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA, Dip.Mgt.St. Team Leader, Networks and Operations Centre Information and Technology Services Division University of Waikato, Hamilton NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax: 07-8384066 Mobile: 025-356121 Email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Warwick Glendenning 05 Jul '98

05 Jul '98

This is were a neutral third party like a University may be of assistance as it should have no particular commercial barrow to push in terms of Internet services. > >- Given that we use the Merit RADB, who would handle disputes in entries in >that database, if we used our own who would set policy there and resolve >disputes ? Thanks and best regards Warwick **************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA, Dip.Mgt.St. Team Leader, Networks and Operations Centre Information and Technology Services Division University of Waikato, Hamilton NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax: 07-8384066 Mobile: 025-356121 Email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.nz --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

7 18

Re: Possible IP addresses for WIX
by Simon Blake 02 Jul '98

02 Jul '98

Hey On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Dean Pemberton wrote: > > > Handing out blocks of 16 to ISPs would probably ease the workload on you > > > CityLink people, and would let ISPs connect people quickly without having > > > to wait for addresses to be allocated. > > > > That was my thinking. > > > > You might want to hold a block that you can allocate out as /32's. > > National Library would not need 16 numbers and is not associated with another > ISP either. Well, not one on Citylink anyway. > There might be other cases like this in the future. Sure. I should've been more specific - I was fully expecting that Citylink would have to act as the "null ISP" and dish out /32's to Citylink customers that don't want/need/have a relationship with another ISP. Cheers Si --------- 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: Possible IP addresses for WIX
by Richard Naylor 01 Jul '98

01 Jul '98

At 04:27 pm 1/07/98 +1200, Joe Abley wrote: >On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Richard Naylor wrote: > > >What do you mean by "routes"? Surely the only route we need is for all >participating ISPs to keep a /23 for that block in their interior >protocols, and to be careful about advertising it to anybody else? > Quite right - I was too quick off the keyboard - my humble apologies to all. >Or have I got the wrong end of the stick again? Groan... Everything to do >with Wellington is _sooo_ confusing to this particular poor naive >Aucklander :) > No - you were awake - I was the dozy one - must be the pressure of work or my cold. What I really mean is that CityLink will use the number and hold a registry for it for WIX members. rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz This mail message contains information that is confidential and which may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase this mail. --------- 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: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New , Zealand
by Richard Naylor 30 Jun '98

30 Jun '98

Sorry to be pedantic, but having a bad cold ....... At 12:06 pm 30/06/98 +1200, Simon Blake wrote: >Hey all. > >On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Andy Linton wrote: > >> space - Citylink isn't private. > >That's for sure. > Just so no one gets the wrong idea, CityLink's TCP/IP service is PUBLIC, CityLink's dark fiber service is PRIVATE. I'd hate people to get the idea that all of our stuff is public - it definately isn't........ sorry to be a pain. - wheres the Paracetamol ? rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz This mail message contains information that is confidential and which may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, distribute or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase this mail. --------- 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: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New , Zealand
by Simon Blake 29 Jun '98

29 Jun '98

Hey yawl. On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Joe Abley wrote: > Well, it's been a while, and there hasn't been much comment on this. Here > we go, then: a proposal. Feel free to shoot me down in flames if this > doesn't sit happily with anybody else :) > > 1. Establish a second emulated LAN on CityLink for BGP peering between > cooperating network operators. This will consist of a series of bilateral > agreements between individual network operators. No customers should > connect to ISPs over this network - this will be a "clean" IP-only > network. While I appreciate that the ISP's primary desire is an interconnect to exchange data with their "peers" (in the loosest sense of the word) on a national basis, I would really like to see an exchange set up in Wellington that also allowed any local organisation to peer on the WIX for *local* traffic. Specifically, the shared ethernet that the ISP's are attached to in Wellington has some 50 other organisations on ir, most at 10Mb/s, some at 100Mb/s. On a daily basis we get the "I'm sending data to some other user of Citylink, and it's really slow" grumble, generally because their traffic is going via Waikato, or Auckland, or wherever. Peering between the ISP's should fix most of these problems. Increasingly, however, we're hearing "we're a customer of ISP X, we're sending data to another customer of ISP X, and performance is still rotten", which peering won't necessarily fix, because it isn't an inter ISP issue. With the advent of more 100Mb/s+ connections, and the increasing desire of local organisations to use Citylink to move massive amounts (A2 full colour spreads, for eg) of data between themselves, this situation isn't likely to improve. Therefore it seems desirable that Citylink attached organisations be able to communicate amongst themselves, without needing to pass through an ISP's router. So, while the ISP's do need a bilateral peering point where individual operators can choose whether to (in effect) carry other ISP's data on their national network, I would like to see a tandem system implemented where local Citylink users can share routes for locally attached networks amongst themselves. I'd also observe that VLAN's aren't (yet) a product of Citylink, (although our current backbone switches do support them), and probably won't be until somebody asks. So it behooves the ISP's concerned to get a request into Richard and Alan so that they can get the product development wheels in motion. > 2. To make (1) as smooth as possible, individual operators should make > efforts to install up-to-date route entries and associated policy into the > Merit (Route Arbiter) routing registry. This will also help with a similar > operation on NZIX. Citylink are/can provide hardware to make a local RA registry a reality, which is presumably necessary if non AS numbered entities want to join the IX? > 3. The Wellington peering network will be called "WIX". ISOCNZ have > reserved wix.net.nz for this purpose. NetLink have offered to keep the > zone fed and watered; any operator should be able to perform zone > transfers for wix.net.nz and NS records for that operators nameserver will > be added by rough concensus (i.e. as long as the nameserver in question > seems to be up most of the time :) > > 4. A class C network will be obtained from ISI by ISOCNZ. This costs > US$500. ISOCNZ will bill a proportion of this amount to all the initial > participants in WIX. The corresponding in-addr.arpa zone will be run by > NetLink on behalf of the peering community, in much the same way as > wix.net.nz. With a bit of arm twisting, I could probably squeeze a couple of unused pre-CIDR Class C's out of WCC - would that be a useful/cheaper alternative? Citylink would (I imagine) also be happy to act as a neutral party for DNS maintenance or ISI billing. Cheers Si Simon Blake simon(a)citylink.co.nz +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

8 16

Re: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand (fwd)
by Joe Abley 17 Jun '98

17 Jun '98

Hi again, ISI are prepared to allocate us an unencumbered class C network for WIX, which should be sufficient for ISP-peering-over-CNH purposes. There are some costs involved (below). Basically the options are: 1. ISI perform allocation of IP addresses to individual ISPs, maintain contact information, etc, etc. This costs US$1200 per year (details below). 2. ISI delegate the address block and let us sort that kind of thing out amongst ourselves. That costs US$500 per year. What do people think? Given that the use of CityLink specifically for ISP peering purposes seems to be beyond CNH's mandate, I presume that if we were to go for this the fees should be paid by someone other than CNH. Is this a candidate for a proposal to ISOCNZ or Domainz (or even Uniforum) for funding? Or should we just have a whip-round? Yes, you may well ask what I am doing messing about with this at 3:30am on a Saturday morning. That is a very good question :) 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT) From: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Cc: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU Subject: Re: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand > > Looks good so far. Now we come to the cost issue. Currently we > > are asking for a registration fee of US$100/month for maintaining > > the delegation and registering each connecting participant. > > This is a fee of US$1200.00 per year for the whole exchange and > > all its participants. > > > > Is this acceptable? > > Could you clarify exactly what the fee covers, and exactly what > registration fuction ISI performs? The fee covers the cost of keeping up with the delegation as a /24 and for each /32 underneath it. This involves regular checkups with each site to ensure that the contact information is correct. This works out to be about 8 hours a month, average for a clerk to perform the contacts and followups. > What we are really looking for is a 24-bit block of globally-unique > addresses, in-addr.arpa delegations for the block, and that's about it. We > have good cooperation between all ISPs involved, and do not anticipate > needing a third party to allocate individual addresses. If you are willing to take on the whole task, then the cost is an annual registration fee of US$500.00 This is to ensure that the exchange is still functioning and meets the use criteria. > Does the monthly charge still apply in this situation? I broke out the fee as a monthly cost. Generally the invoices are annual, with some on a quarterly basis and two are on multiyear agreements. --bill --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 6

BGP peering at NZIX
by Joe Abley 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Hi all, Following up yet again, this time on some discussions to date regarding peering at NZIX using BGP. Just a couple of things which have sprung into my mind... Running OSPF and BGP simultaneously on NZIX routers will continue to be necessary until we have gained critical mass, and have reached a stage at which OSPF can be depreciated. Given that this is the short-term situation, it seems to me that we need to be careful of a couple of things. I am using CLEAR as an example only :) 1. If CLEAR is to peer with provider X over NZIX, then we will want a list of routes from provider X so that we can build a filter for routes received from X's BGP speaker(s). Until X's routes are entered and maintained in a RR of some kind (like the RADB), adds moves and changes to this list will be a manual process. [*] 2. If X makes more specific (i.e. longer prefix) advertisements using OSPF, those are the routes we will use. This is important if CLEAR is to peer with X somewhere else in addition to NZIX (e.g. WIX), as we will always prefer longer-prefix routes. 3. If X makes less specific (i.e. shorter prefix) advertisements across NZIX than they do their global transit provider, then we will likely route to them via Australia or the US. As we get things going, there will probably be times where routing becomes sub-optimal (or, in fact, completely broken :) Could I suggest that people going ahead with BGP across NZIX announce their progress to this list to help everybody track down problems if (when) they arise? [*] Not having route objects stored in a RR of some kind is going to make maintaining route filters a sticky business for all concerned. There is running code at Merit - do we have loose agreement that the RADB is a suitable place to do this? If there is interest, I am happy to dredge through the appropriate documentation and produce a quick-and-dirty guide to RADB object manipulation. 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 1

WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand (fwd)
by Joe Abley 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Hi all, Following on from some of our WIX-numbering discussions at Taupo, I have received word from APNIC that a delegation direct from them for WIX is not possible within the scope of their current policy. However, Yoshiko has pointed me towards Bill Manning of ISI, who has been delegating address space to other exchanges around the world already. I have sent him a brief description of the problem, and have asked for assistance -- copy of note attached below FYcollectiveI. 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 02:00:58 +1200 (NZST) From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU Cc: Yoshiko Okazaki ChongFong <yoshiko(a)apnic.net>, hostmaster(a)teckla.apnic.net Subject: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand Bill, Yoshiko ChongFong of APNIC gave me your name, and mentioned that you were currently involved in the delegation of globally-unique IP address space to neutral exchange points. I am writing regarding a relatively new neutral exchange network located in Wellington, New Zealand. Wellington City Council have facilitated a city-wide fibre-optic network called CityLink (http://www.citylink.co.nz) and one of the key applications of that network is an emulated ethernet network called "WIX" provided to facilitate peering between the various ISPs who maintain points of presence in Wellington. I work for CLEAR Net, an ISP in NZ, and am writing informally on behalf of the New Zealand Network Operators Group (NZNOG). The desire to formalise peering arrangements over WIX has been expressed at several recent NZNOG meetings. CityLink have a mandate to provide connectivity, but are keen to allow the NZ ISP community to develop their own procedures/guidelines for the operation of WIX as a neutral exchange point. To date limited peering has been obtained using rfc1918 address space; however, the non-uniqueness of the ranges used so far (and an inability to locate a suitable range of rfc1918 addresses that suits _everybody_) is preventing wider peering. I am investigating the possiblity of obtaining a block of globally unique addresses with which to number ISP interfaces on WIX. The intention is that these addresses will be reachable from within NZ ISPs, but will not be advertised internationally. Hence a subnet allocated from within a supernet delegation operated by any single ISP is undesirable, since (a) any such network would be advertised by virtue of the supernet route, and (b) the address range is not particularly "neutral". New Zealand has a history of free and unencumbered peering between domestic providers using exchanges such as NZIX as well as bilateral peering arrangements; the inexpensive network transport within Wellington provided by CityLink fibre has the potential to greatly enhance connectivity for all concerned. I have approached APNIC, whose position is that a 24-bit block is not possible to delegate from their supernets within their current policy. Does the application I have described fit your exchange numbering project? Regards, 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 20:29:09 +0900 From: Yoshiko Okazaki ChongFong <yoshiko(a)apnic.net> To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Cc: hostmaster(a)teckla.apnic.net Subject: Re: (Neutral Exchange Point in Wellingon, New Zealand ) Hi, >1. Does an allocation of a separate block for this exchange point fit >in with APNIC policy for block allocation? Not really. APNIC usually allocates address space to ISPs and the initial allocation is a /19. Since the requirement is barely a /24, APNIC would not be comfortable accepting WIX to be a member of APNIC. Also we do NOT allocate separate /24 block to existing members for this sort of purposes. >2. If the application fits general APNIC policy, can CLEAR apply for >the address space (by virtue of its APNIC membership) on behalf of >Wellington City Council? As I explained above, APNIC cannot allocate separate /24 block to WIX through CLEAR and we do not recommend them to become a separate member of APNIC either. What APNIC recommend is that as Bill Manning, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU, is allocating address space to exchange points. You might want to contact him for more details. Here is the URL for his project is http://www.isi.edu/div7/naps/. Regards, Yoshiko -APNIC hostmaster ---------------- --------- 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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Arron Scott 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Ok ... so I didn't mean the whole question of who will arbitrate a RR at the three IX points to dominate the whole list, but I do think it raises a concern with such systems. My own personal view is that this should have been the kind of stuff a Code of Conduct should have described, or should be defined by a board governing each IX. Democracy doesn't always get things done, sometime someone has to just define the rules. If we are to employ a Route Registry at any of the IX's or indeed on a point-to-point peering connection with each other, then we need to ensure the rules are agreed upon first. There are a number of downstream ISPs that sit behind the likes of the wholesalers and the top 10 ISPs, and these guys will be directly affected by such a policy, and need to know the rules as well. Sorry this next bit gets a bit confusing. Take JimISP who have "BigBusiness Inc" attached to them, and they all reside under Xtra under NetGate. Due to misinformation :) "BigBusiness" are convinced to move to DaveISP who are under ClearNet who are under Clear. Now ... who in this case is responsible for making sure the RR is updated, realising that JimISP could have entered the entry in the RR themselves and Xtra and NetGate may have nothing to do with the change at all ? Also ... who is going to make sure DaveISP knows how to get the customer updated in the RR when they get new customers ? Finally ... who is going to have to update the RR at 2:30am on Sunday morning when the customer demands that they be moved right now ? Right now I'm not sure we know half of what's going on out there, the RR will help us to find out for sure, but it may also delay implementation times for those who do move from provider to provider, which may make us very unpopular. Arron Scott _________________________________________________________________________ Arron Scott Phone: ++64-9-3569687 Service Specialist Fax: ++64-9-3794790 Service Implementation & Management Group Cell: ++64-25-883163 Telecom NZ Ltd eMail: arrons(a)netgate.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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

From: Andy Linton <Andy.Linton(a)netlink.co.nz> > >I'd have gone for 'half of the net community' if I were saying it. (:-) > >I'm curious as to why the body that administers the 'nz' namespace >should be perceived as a controversial choice. I'm not suggesting that >they run anything, merely act as arbitrators in the event of dispute. At >least each of the members of this list and/or their employers have the >option of joining ISOCNZ and voting in a council to formulate policy. >I'd throw down the gauntlet to the members of this list to join and >change ISCONZ if they don't like how it's run. > >If ISOCNZ isn't a suitable candidate then can we hear some other >suggestions. > >I'd say the University of Waikato aren't an impartial observer in this >and the ISPs have no say in who would make up the members of an >arbitration panel from that source. > >Of course, we could form YANONZ (Yet Another Networking Organisation in >NZ) and waste even more time trying to raise funds and have meetings. > I'd agree with using ISOCNZ for this sort of thing. I think that is what it is there for. The only issue I would have with using ISOCNZ is the technical knowledge that this sort of role might require. I'm not sure that this exists in ISOCNZ at this point in time although I may be completely wrong. Perhaps what we need is something like ISOCNZ to get everyone working together. Maybe it's time we seriously build a tighter community between everyone, which hasn't existed in the past. Just don't tell the commerce commision I said that cause I doubt they would understand :) I don't want to see another networking group formed. I am sure everyone is aware of the amount of bull**** which comes from trying to do that sort of thing. Setting up committees... the continual arguments across emails... its not worth it. And everyone will end up doing their own thing because they will not have time for the politics. I think this has been shown time and time again to almost everyone on this list, at some time in their internet career. -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Reply to field
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

I'd like to start a hopefully breif discussion of the list mechanics... I'd like to see the reply-to field utilised to only have nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz in it. So as to avoid the constant double up of messages I am sure most of us are receiving. I always try and trim out the senders name, but its easy to forget. Thoughts anyone? -Rowan PS If it's just the fact that I am using outlook express shoot me now :) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 3

Re: Reply to field
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

> (a) someone @waikato has just modified the majordomo config, or > (b) Chris is doing something devious with procmail. > >I think it's probably (b) :) It is b :) See your headers below. -Rowan Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:51:27 +1200 (NZST) From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> X-Sender: jabley(a)buddha.clear.net.nz Reply-To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Reply to field In-Reply-To: <19980604183543.A24635(a)caffeine.ix.net.nz> Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980604184649.17427B-100000(a)buddha.clear.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Precedence: bulk Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1764 > >-- >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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Rowan Smith 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

I think that with local peering on the increase throughout New Zealand a RADB or similar would be extremly useful. At NZIX for instance we should all be running BGP, with filters to prevent unauthorised advertisments arriving from someone elses router. While a RADB would only be as good as the information it held and how well you could trust someone to enter data into it. It would still be better than what we have at the moment (almost nothing). I think almost everybody has had to change a metric at Waikato because someone has accidently advertised the wrong Network. I know I did it when we multi-homed a netlink customer several years ago. And I know it has happened to me serveral times. I actually remember a 4am 6 way conversation with Sandy yourself, KC and Iprolink trying to work out a OSPF routing error that turned out to be a Cisco bug, which was only preventable by adding a access-list. We don't have to invest in a server or nominate someone to maintain one, we could all use the merit radb today. The issue arrises (as you have mentioned) when we register "our" IP Addresses against our AS. Most ISPs still have legacy IP space which "belongs" to the larger /16, /15 etc that netway currently advertise, this usually comes from companies which don't want to change. I would like to have the addresses which these organisations have been allocated by Apnic (nznic at the time), routed with our AS number. And as such stored in a database with my AS so that other local bodies that I peer with may use this information to build reliable filter-lists. This would be advantageous to a company like ICONZ, where by if a major international outage occured (heaven forbid :), with our supplier then we would be able to come to some arrangement with another ISP that we peer with to use their international capacity albeit at a decreased performance level, this could be acheived simply by changing some routing filters, assuming that all the appropriate entries were in the RADB(s). Education is required to ensure that people don't think that they own a certain IP address range indefinitely. As the internet requires the addresses to be aggregated organisations need to know this, and understand why. I think that this has been shown by the recent campaign to bring the 190.xx (or what ever it was) range back into some real size perspective. -Rowan -----Original Message----- From: Arron Scott <arrons(a)netgate.net.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Tuesday, 2 June 1998 17:58 Subject: Re: Route Policy Database/Filters >Hi all, > >I would be interested to know what scenarios people have for using such a >database. NetGate currently has a fairly complex routing table, and yet our >boundary routing inside New Zealand still remains fairly simple. > >I am also slightly concerned that having these entries in a database would >infer some "right of ownership" for certain address space, which would do >the concept of hierarchical routing a server disservice. From my >experience, any time someone enters a new entry in the RADB, even if it is >a "black hole" from someone elses CIDR block they feel it gives them a >right to use that given address space indefinately. We may also have to >consider asking for the right to administer sub-delegations of our APNIC >registered addresses ourselves. > >I am not against a router server, I am however keen to ensure it offers >tangible benefits to the users, and improves things for the Internet >society at large. > >Arron Scott >Telecom NZ > >At 05:03 PM 2/06/98 +1200, John Houlker wrote: >>I understand a number of ISPs in NZ would be interested in using a route >>policy database to allow communication of this information and, in >>particular, to enable automated maintenance of filters to control route >>policies. Recently we have had a Computer Science student run an informal >>survey of some ISPs on this issue and again there was an interested >>response from most; he has also been revisiting the situation in respect to >>running a database using the "Route Arbiter" code. I didn't get to the >>NZNOG meeting (perhaps this was discussed there), but could "NZNOG" >>consider this question and perhaps encourage the application of such >>coordinated controls on route information? >> >>In principle I believe the IRR could be used for such a purpose, and it may >>be good practise to load AS/route object information in there in any case >>(it is especially important for multi-homed networks), but maybe there >>should be a NZ based service for NZ information. >> >>Thoughts? >> >>John >> >> >>--------- >>To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >>where the body of your message reads: >>unsubscribe nznog >> >> >_________________________________________________________________________ >Arron Scott Phone: ++64-9-3569687 >Service Specialist Fax: ++64-9-3794790 >Service Implementation & Management Group Cell: ++64-25-883163 >Telecom NZ Ltd eMail: arrons(a)netgate.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

3 2

Majordomo results (fwd)
by Joe Abley 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

To save anybody else from bothering (and as there seems to be some interest) here are the results of a "who nznog". A motley bunch indeed :) -- 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:03:42 +1200 From: Majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz To: jabley(a)clear.co.nz Subject: Majordomo results -- >>>> who nznog Members of list 'nznog': rhicks(a)clear.co.nz jclark(a)telstra.co.nz a.scott(a)netgate.net.nz jabley(a)clear.co.nz nznog(a)netlink.co.nz tonyw(a)iconz.co.nz j.houlker(a)waikato.ac.nz sandy(a)netgate.net.nz noc(a)waikato.ac.nz OOLSSON(a)clear.co.nz rowan(a)iconz.co.nz D1NC(a)telecom.co.nz chris(a)cybernet.co.nz craig(a)laptop.iprolink.co.nz T.McGregor(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz markg(a)iprolink.co.nz Dean.Pemberton(a)natlib.govt.nz cthorpe(a)team.xtra.co.nz 18 subscribers >>>> --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Publically available who nznog command
by Rowan Smith 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

The only thing I might be concerned about is the use of this feature for building spam lists. I would only be concerned about this if I currently didn't get any spam, but as I get upwards of 500/day I don't care, but others might, which probably makes this email pointless. :) Would it be possible to allow the who function to only be executed by members of the list? While this wouldn't stop people from obtaining the user list by subscribing doing a who and then unscribing. It would stop the bulk of them of they were informed that the command was disabled by the list owner, as most people wouldn't try to use the list command by subscribing. I don't even know if majordomo can do this. I think having the who command available is a invaluable asset for everyone. And it should be enabled anyway. Just my 2cents worth. I should probably just shut up. :) -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Hands Up
by Arron Scott 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Hmmm ... interesting response to the hands up, Clear, NetGate, Telstra, Natlib, ICONZ, NetLink and UOW by my count ... so are IHUG, Xtra, Voyager, IBM, CompuServe, IProLink, CommNet and any of you others out there ? Again I would ask for the good of this list can we have the list members publicised ? Anyone from UOW got a comment on this ? If the other major players in this business aren't on this list then it's not a very good forum to have deep and meaningfuls in. Thanks Arron Scott _________________________________________________________________________ Arron Scott Phone: ++64-9-3569687 Service Specialist Fax: ++64-9-3794790 Service Implementation & Management Group Cell: ++64-25-883163 Telecom NZ Ltd eMail: arrons(a)netgate.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

List of members of NZNOG mailing list
by Rex Croft, 07 838 4597 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

Hello all. Apparently this list is set to not allow the "who nznog" command. If I don't hear any views to the contrary, I will change this and email a list of members on Friday afternoon. To Donald Neal, would you prefer that I took over maintaining this list since it has sprung into use? - Rex Croft, University of Waikato --------- 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: Beer
by Roger Hicks 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

On Wednesday, June 03, 1998 2:33 PM, Dean Pemberton [SMTP:dean(a)dean.natlib.govt.nz] wrote: > > > > oo oo.. I came in late, but the subject says 'beer' so it can't be bad... > > Yeah - the beer idea sounds good - but unfortunatly it is a long way to drive for an ale. > The place is good...the beer's great...it's close enough for me... Why did you have to select the wrong day :-((( Have one for me! R. --------- 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: Beer
by Joe Abley 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Tony Wicks wrote: > So where is this Galbraith's ? Ah - hadn't thought of that :) Galbraith's is in the old library building on the corner of Symonds St and Mt Eden road. Just next to the car park. 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

3 3