- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Any mail admins from sbc.sbcglobal.net on here?
by Paul Adshead 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Please contact me off list.

1 0

CHIX
by Russell Tester 05 Dec '06

05 Dec '06

Does anyone know if CHIX is alive, was it ever alive or are there any plans to revive it in the future? Regards, Russell Tester Severworks Ltd

4 3

Re: [nznog] CHIX - who'd sign up tomorrow?
by Erin Salmon 04 Dec '06

04 Dec '06

Hi, Last I heard (about 2 years ago) it was to be hosted between Snap Internet and University of Canterbury. We have been eager to peer since before a chix was ruminated, and remain so. Unleash would be happy to put forth a small amount of rackspace for the purpose if others want to get some informal peering going. We also have tall buildings at our disposal for those out there who are wirelessly inclined. My motivation is to eliminate costly backhaul to other main centres and create a marketplace, if you will, for bandwidth down here. Christchurch could use some life breathed into its Internet. Expressions of interest? Erin -----Original Message----- From: "Nathan Ward" <nznog(a)daork.net> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Sent: 6/12/06 12:24 a.m. Subject: Re: [nznog] CHIX http://nzix.net/ The following exchanges are under construction: * Christchurch Internet Exchange * Southland Internet Exchange The "Who uses .." list shows nothing. Also, your sig is misspelt. On 6/12/2006, at 12:19 AM, Russell Tester wrote: > Does anyone know if CHIX is alive, was it ever alive or are there any > plans to revive it in the future? > > Regards, > > Russell Tester > Severworks Ltd > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > > !DSPAM:22,457555d3143831749460768! > > > _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

FW:Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Jeremy Simons 02 Dec '06

02 Dec '06

Statement from TeamTalk Kordia supplies services to TeamTalk and we have a longstanding relationship with Kordia. They are one of our preferred suppliers and we are happy with our commercial arrangements. TeamTalk did not authorise the release of any Kordia material. The statement in question was sent to a junior member of TeamTalk's staff who contrary to company policy copied it to Jonathan Brewer of Araneo. We are treating the matter very seriously and are taking steps to ensure that such a breach of policy does not occur again. It is important to note that the item quoted was one paragraph from a complex 25-page document and was taken out of context. We value our relationship with Kordia and regret that this incident has occurred Jeremy Simons General Manager - Operations TeamTalk Limited ____________________________________________ Jeremy Simons General Manager - Operations TeamTalk Limited How Work Gets Done Phone: ++64 4 802 1478 Mobile: ++64 21 715 390 Fax: ++64 4 802 1490 <mailto:jsimons(a)teamtalk.co.nz> Mail to: jsimons(a)teamtalk.co.nz Disclaimer: The information in this electronic mail message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this Internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. TeamTalk Limited accepts no responsibility for any effects this email message or attachments has on the recipient network or computer system.

7 7

Re: [nznog] FW: Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Dean Pemberton 30 Nov '06

30 Nov '06

> List moderator, is it possible to remove this list from the archives? I think we've been through this before, and the answer is no. There is all sorts of things in the archives that people would like to have removed. The answer has always been no. Infact way back in time there was a HUGE argument about it. Where people offered to just make alternative, REAL versions of the archives with the removed posts. It got really nasty. Dean (In his ad-hoc role as NZNOG historian)

5 4

FW: Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Jonathan Brewer 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hi Folks, I'm afraid my question may have breached a confidentiality agreement and we are getting angry phone calls from our supplier, so please disregard my email earlier today and delete any references to it from your inbox if that is possible. List moderator, is it possible to remove this list from the archives? Thanks, Jonathan Brewer > ______________________________________________ > From: Jonathan Brewer [mailto:jon.brewer(a)araneo.net.nz] > Sent: Thursday, 30 November 2006 9:42 a.m. > To: 'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz' > Subject: Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators > > Hi Folks, > > We telehouse at a number of facilities throughout New Zealand. We > typically provide our own batteries and contract for use of an on-site > diesel generator. At most sites we are not able to put in our own > generator. > > We were recently informed by Kordia (BCL) that they can no longer allow us > to use standby generator power at their sites due to the Electricity > Reforms Act. > > "BCL is deemed to be a Line Company under the Electricity Reforms Act and > therefore is unable to also be classified as a Generator. On that basis, > BCL is no longer able to provide you with Standby Generator Power for > upgrades to existing or new services." > > This effectively bars us from providing carrier grade telecommunications > services from BCL sites. > > One might say "use different sites" or "build your own towers", but these > are not options as these towers were built by the government before the > times of the Resource Management Act in unique locations where new towers > cannot be built. > > Can they do this? Are they doing this to everyone, or just us? > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Brewer

3 2

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

: The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught : many lessons about what will and will not work (and more : importantly what will be accepted or not). Exactly. I NEED to multihome. I won't accept not being able to do that. No provider is going to be good enough that I trust ALL of my connectivity with them and no one else. That settles it right there. A protocol should not dictate my business practice. : ps - the 100-million number likely came from Alain Durand's : presentation "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" WRT "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses", I see the following chart. (apologies for the formatting. It's on page 6 at www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/alain-durand.pdf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Triple Play Effect on the Use of IP Addresses 2005 2006+ HSD only Triple Play Cable Modem 1(private only) 1 Home Computer/Router 1 1 eMTA (Voice adaptor) 0 1 – 2 Set Top Box (STB) 0 2 Total number of IP addresses(assume 2.5 1 – 2 8 – 9 STB per household) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What STB needs 2 IPs per box? The way we're doing it is one private IP per STB and one STB per television set, so that's 2-3 private IPs per household. One public IP per customer for Internet and we're not going for VoIP until later. Perhaps they have one STB per household no matter the number of television sets? Also, I see they have 20-30 ASNs. Are all 20M customers going to be in one AS? I wouldn't expect that. Finally, with VPRNs addresses could be reused. Just put the customers in different VPRNs and duplicate the address scheme. It's 'divide and conquer' methodology. I'm a noobie to VPRNs, so flame me if this isn't feasible. I have doused my flameproof underpants with beer, so I'm protected... :-) scott --- jejs+lists(a)sahala.org wrote: From: "joshua sahala" <jejs+lists(a)sahala.org> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:42:35 +1300 (NZDT) I find it slightly ironic that those screaming the loudest for IPv6 seem to have the most poorly researched assertions regarding the death of IPv4. (I am of course ignoring the obvious stupidity of things like IPv8/9/16) Who are the loudest proponents of IPv6? I tend to agree with the evaluation presented in Todd Underwood's blog: vendors, consultants, and the protocol designers themselves... (http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/03/bashing_ipv6_at_telecomnext.shtml) If IPv6 is the answer, what was the question again? Perhaps it is time to accept that IPv6 is the wrong answer (or we need to start asking better questions), take the lessons learned from its failure, and start again. The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught many lessons about what will and will not work (and more importantly what will be accepted or not). There are many fundamental problems with the protocol that no amount of marketecture or hand-waving will fix; the least of which is a lack of end-users calling for a v6 address for their toaster/television/mechanical tie rack. These issue must be addressed, either in IPv6 (not likely), or in IPng-NG :) </soapbox> /joshua ps - the 100-million number likely came from Alain Durand's presentation "Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" (it says ~20-million customers + kit == 100-million) -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams - _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

9 15

Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Jonathan Brewer 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hi Folks, We telehouse at a number of facilities throughout New Zealand. We typically provide our own batteries and contract for use of an on-site diesel generator. At most sites we are not able to put in our own generator. We were recently informed by Kordia (BCL) that they can no longer allow us to use standby generator power at their sites due to the Electricity Reforms Act. "BCL is deemed to be a Line Company under the Electricity Reforms Act and therefore is unable to also be classified as a Generator. On that basis, BCL is no longer able to provide you with Standby Generator Power for upgrades to existing or new services." This effectively bars us from providing carrier grade telecommunications services from BCL sites. One might say "use different sites" or "build your own towers", but these are not options as these towers were built by the government before the times of the Resource Management Act in unique locations where new towers cannot be built. Can they do this? Are they doing this to everyone, or just us? Thanks, Jonathan Brewer

3 2

[Fwd: Re: Charging for IPv6]
by Gerard Creamer 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

On 30/11/2006 11:36 a.m., Andy Linton wrote: > For us having this address space from APNIC pushes us into the next tier of > membership and costs us an additional US$2500 a year. We have had a very > serious discussion here about returning this to APNIC and getting a reduction > in our charges. We recently got our first allocation from APNIC, and I was surprised that we had to choose 4 or 6 and had to pay more for both - as Andy says, are we being encouraged to do this or not? We are still small, so the additional cost is prohibitive. I would have thought there would be an associated IP6 allocation with every IP4 allocation, but I guess I was naive. Gerard

1 0

Re: [nznog] Charging for IPv6
by jdmwoolley＠ihug.co.nz 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

> A rough eyeball of the DSC stats for the last day or so > seems to indicate a little over 50% A queries and about > 10% AAAA. > Now THAT is an interesting statistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it means that a fair proportion of the queries coming in are TRYING to use v6, but presumably either aren't given a v6 address back or are unable to access it once obtained. Given that Vista will default to using v6 and fall back to v4 and the above statistic, one could surmise that if v6 was deployed, it would almost immediately get a fair portion of traffic. Indeed, when I tried pinging between two boxes at home that I had put Vista RC1 on I got a reply from a v6 address. Even though I'd specified the v4 address in the ping command Jonathan

1 0

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- mjl(a)luckie.org.nz wrote:----------------------- From: Matthew Luckie <mjl(a)luckie.org.nz> > This was discussed earlier in the recent flurry of email on the > subject. Also, this is why I was asking about VPRNs. However, I > missed the part on why STBs need unique IPs or why they need 2 per > box. : http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/real/100million.ram : : the answer to the second question is about a minute in. ---------------------------------------------------- Geez, I'm trying to listen, but the quality is so bad I can hardly understand it. Does anyone know where a 'clean' copy of the speech is? scott

2 1

Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

> The major driver will be customer demand (read: $$$$), or the network : Funnily enough, I was reading this only yesterday: : : http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/network/ipv6wv.mspx : : Have a look a the "Business Drivers" section especially. It's just funny numbers: "A recent report from NIST3 estimates that IPv6 could provide a US$10 billion per year benefit to the U.S. and the Japanese government estimates that IPv6 could generate a value of US$1.55 trillion." They give a reference to footnote 3. I searched footnote 3 (www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/network/ipv6wv.mspx) for the word trillion and only get one match: "The 128-bit address header in IPv6, in contrast, provides approximately 3.4x1038 addresses, enough to assign trillions of addresses to each person now on earth or even to every square inch of the earth’s surface." So, to segway into pet peeve of mine, this is the reason to allocate very large (for example: allocation of IPv4 /8 blocks to everyone that asked in the not so distant past) blocks of v6 space. Heck, no one will EVER need that much IP space! <8-) Show me the money, not funny numbers... scott Oops, I forgot: beer :-)

18 27

Another Topic
by Peter Youngquest 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hey All I am personally bored with the IPV4-6 discussion, but while everyone is up and talking. What is everyones opinion in regard to PBT. Does this have a place, can it work happily as a feeder into an MPLS cloud or will it remove the need for MPLS. Rgds Peter

4 5

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- richardn(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz wrote:---------------------- From: Richard Nelson <richardn(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz> While not wanting to spoil a good discussion with facts, there is a presentation on Comcast's plans for IPv6 from a recent NANOG here: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/durand.html The summary is 20 million customers * 2.5 set-tops/customer * 2 IPs/box = 100million IPs. The network design requires unique IPs. The ran out of 10net in 2005 and have got a large part of 73net from ARIN. Their long term solution (new services = more IPs/customer) is IPv6. ----------------------------------------------------------- This was discussed earlier in the recent flurry of email on the subject. Also, this is why I was asking about VPRNs. However, I missed the part on why STBs need unique IPs or why they need 2 per box. scott

3 2

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- aj(a)sneep.net wrote: From: Alastair Johnson <aj(a)sneep.net> Scott Weeks wrote: : Finally, with VPRNs addresses could be reused. Just put : the customers in different VPRNs and duplicate the address : scheme. It's 'divide and conquer' methodology. I'm a : noobie to VPRNs, so flame me if this isn't feasible. I have : doused my flameproof underpants with beer, so I'm protected... :-) :: Oh yes. This is a valid methodology. Also, you don't :: really need every subscriber to be uniquely addressed across :: your entire network - to the closest PoP site or Super-PoP site :: is sufficient, depending on your topology. :: :: Of course, from your Ethernet switch/DSLAM/FTTx node/whatever, :: you know where and who the subscriber is, so you're not reliant :: on IP addressing to authorize content access, either.... Thanks for the answer. So, it seems that all customer's STBs could be put in as many VPRNs as necessary to divide them into groups such that RFC1918 space is never exhausted and each customer could get one (or as many as they request) IP address that's publically routable for their internet connectivity. Thus, if the Very Giant ISPs designed their network in this manner, IPv4 would take them as far as they need. Yes? scott

3 2

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

--- gerard(a)face.co.nz wrote: From: Gerard Creamer <gerard(a)face.co.nz> On 30/11/2006 7:41 a.m., Scott Weeks wrote: > Thanks for the answer. So, it seems that all customer's STBs could be put in as many VPRNs as necessary to divide them into groups such that RFC1918 space is never exhausted and each customer could get one (or as many as they request) IP address that's publically routable for their internet connectivity. Excuse my ignorance, but I'm having trouble finding useful information on what a VPRN (Virtual Private Remote Network) is - I could guess, based on my understanding of VPNs and NAT (as it appears to be used as a NAT replacement in context??), but that might be dangerous - any pointers to useful resources would be appreciated. ---------------------------------------------- My apologies, it stands for Virtual Private Routed Network. It's also known by many other names: RFC2547bis, IP Based Virtual Private Network; BGP/MPLS VPNs, Layer 3 VPNs, etc. Here's a link that looks good, though I haven't read it yet: www.spirentcom.com/documents/760.pdf scott

1 0

VPRN
by Gerard Creamer 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

On 30/11/2006 7:41 a.m., Scott Weeks wrote: > Thanks for the answer. So, it seems that all customer's STBs could be > put in as many VPRNs as necessary to divide them into groups such that > RFC1918 space is never exhausted and each customer could get one (or > as many as they request) IP address that's publically routable for > their internet connectivity. Excuse my ignorance again, but I'm having trouble finding useful information on what a VPRN (Virtual Private Remote Network) is - I could guess, based on my understanding of VPNs and NAT (as it appears to be used as a NAT replacement in context??), but that might be dangerous - any pointers to useful resources would be appreciated. Thanks, Gerard

1 0

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by chris＠chrishellberg.com 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

My mail app doesn't do quoting sorry :( Peter, Agree, it's not black and white and you raise many pertinent questions. But one of the governing factors should be that a shortage of addresses[1] shouldn't restrict my network design. Not saying that you need to be wasteful. Just that NAT or some proxy equivalent shouldn't be the the solution to the address squeeze[1]. /Chris [1] maybe there is an address shortage, maybe there isn't..not terribly important for this point. ----- Original Message ---- From: Peter Youngquest <peter(a)mynetworks.co.nz> To: NZNOG <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:50:35 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) As much as I find this topic boring :-) I doubt the answer is as black and white as some would like. Exposing the evolving subscriber premise to the "world" as such may reduce some problems but obviously increases others. I think it is fair to say alot of this is a balancing game. If you expose the subscriber premise to the service core (CSCF sort of area) you increase loading at the service core. This is not a good thing considering the stability of these pieces of the network at this stage. No vendor rants to that statement pls. IMS/SIP gateways are being developed that reduce Service Core loading but still how much of the home is exposed and how much isn't. Also there are a number of initiatives working currently to further define the home, how the CPE will interact with upstream - each other, QoS on the home segment etc etc If the subscriber premise is exposed to network and as Dave pointed out earlier there are a number of less than trivial considerations. Address management, device management, Security,introducing new devices to the home (another Dick Smith VoIP phone), point of demarcation etc etc. Also is there a need to expose all the devices globally. STBs would only need visibility to the service providers, VoIP phones to the SBC/SBG, fridge to the mail server :-D Also there are the various styles of network connectivity: - single pipe, MUX UNI that will have impact on the addressing schemes. To state that having "20million subs and requiring v6 for management" as a poster child for v6 is not a good look. There are other ways of approaching this - distribution and hierarchy to me sounds feasible. Last time I looked the sky is above us. What is happening is we are moving into an interesting time where the evolution of the subscriber premise will very much determine how the networks will look. Rgds Peter

3 2

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by chris＠chrishellberg.com 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

I quite like the idea of being able to give every device behind a CPE a globally routable address. If there is a way to avoid NAT in the first place (also 1918 if that's how you're forced to do CPE management), v6 seems like an obvious alternative. Unless I'm mistaken that the RIR would happily allocate enough addresses for a /29 per household? The content is what drives the business decisions, so if the problem of accessing V4 content were magic-ed away, I'm not seeing why the bashing on V6. Should I come to more nznogs for the answer? /Chris ----- Original Message ---- From: Alastair Johnson <aj(a)sneep.net> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:50:24 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) Philip D'Ath wrote: > I don't know how more obvious it can be made. > > It's solving the looming problem of the IPv4 address pool being > exhausted in the next 3 to 6 years. > > Is not complete lack of Internet connectivity for new customers not a > good enough reason? I think the subject line says it all, on that particular topic. V6 seems to largely be a problem looking for a solution at this point in time. Need to support 25 million CPE devices? There are ways to do that, and many vendors are falling over themselves to help you. STBs? No problem. Triple/quad/quinta-plays? Got it covered. While I don't doubt that IPv6 will eventually become the widespread protocol, do you REALLY see that happening before 2020-ish? At which point the carriers will be able to make a premium selling v4 service, because by gosh there will be a lot of legacy networks out there needing it. But that's a completely separate topic. aj. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

Posting and quoting
by Ian Batterbee 29 Nov '06

29 Nov '06

Hi everyone, It would be greatly appreciated if everyone posting would make the effort to remove any unnecessary quoted text from their reply before hitting send, as it is quite hard to spot the bits that are new when reading the list in digest form, with the same paragraphs repeating again and again at the end of postings. I realise some people are already doing this. Feel free to flame me for making a such a request, but address such flames to /dev/null Thanks

1 0

Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

--- andrew(a)etc.gen.nz wrote: : There are some DSL providers in some Asian countries : who are very interested in IPv6 because they've almost : exhausted 10/8 and weren't able to receive a public /8.[1] I can't imagine any Asian country's ISP that has used 16777216 IPs. Even so, they could still have 1114112 more IPs by using 192.168/16 and 172.16/12. Do you have a pointer to which provider this is? scott --- andrew(a)etc.gen.nz wrote: From: Andrew Ruthven <andrew(a)etc.gen.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:17:18 +1300 On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:12 +1300, Robert Gray wrote: > Philip D'Ath wrote: > > > I think the board of directors will flip, and tell you to find a > > solution, as not growing the business will not be considered an option. There are some DSL providers in some Asian countries who are very interested in IPv6 because they've almost exhausted 10/8 and weren't able to receive a public /8.[1] > I'd check that the board were happy that your customers won't be able to > host web sites or email servers that can be seen in v4 space or even run > p2p apps with v4 customers. > > When I looked at v6 some 10 years ago (I bought a book) it seemed to me > that the world all had to change together and that's not a cutover I can > see working too well. There is an education network in Catalonia that is IPv6 only[2]. They are using proxies to allow access to the traditional IPv4 Internet for specific applications. So there is no need for the entire world to cutover at once. And as Philip says, dual-stack is probably the method that a lot of companies that are transitioning will use. Cheers! [1] This was in March in this year, so they've probably exhausted it by now. [2] http://www.iepg.org/november2004/deploying_5000_ipv6_sites.pdf - This slideshow is from 2004, but Jordi was saying during March that they had rolled out the network. I haven't been able to find anything to back this up... -- Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion)
by Scott Weeks 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

Thanks Joe, I must've misunderstood other mailing list's discussions. I thought small-fry ISPs were forced to have only one upstream and only the biggies were able to have more than one. I mean to multi-home to many different providers and an IX or two just like I do today, BTW. Thanks for setting me on the right thought-path and apologies to the list for any confusion. scott --- jabley(a)ca.afilias.info wrote: From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)ca.afilias.info> To: surfer(a)mauigateway.com Cc: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: Re: [nznog] THE SKY IS FALLING ( was Re: IPv4 Exhaustion) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:10:53 -0500 Scott! On 28-Nov-2006, at 18:07, Scott Weeks wrote: > : The past 10+ years of work on IPv6 nee IPng have taught > : many lessons about what will and will not work (and more > : importantly what will be accepted or not). > > Exactly. I NEED to multihome. I won't accept not being able to do > that. No provider is going to be good enough that I trust ALL of > my connectivity with them and no one else. That settles it right > there. A protocol should not dictate my business practice. You can multi-home in v6 in precisely the same way as you do in v4 if you're an ISP, under all RIR policies. This also goes for anybody who qualified for v4 PI assignments in the ARIN region (so, end users too, at least those who qualify for sufficient addresses to want to multi-home with PI v4 space). Other regions will presumably follow suit if their respective memberships want that to happen. The ability to multi-home using PA v6 space (as is commonly done in the v4 network) depends on deployed filtering practice. Currently, it doesn't work very well; however, if there was pressure from an actual customer base, it could well be that it would work more often. Neither of these require any additional protocol development or implementation effort, and both ought to be very familiar to anybody who is multi-homed using v4. Nothing until this sentence has had anything to do with shim6, for example. There are lots of arguments for why v6 won't/shouldn't/can't succeed as a replacement for v4, but multi-homing is barely one of them. Joe

1 0

Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

--- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> : : 17 million addresses is simply not enough for a country the size of the : US (and many others). They already have 100 million set top box's : deployed. :-) RFC1918 space is used within a network only. Not across networks. So, one network's IPTV customer can have the same STB IP address as another's when the RCF1918 space is used. You stream from your head-end to your customers only, so there's no need for public IP addressing. The traffic stays within a particular network. That is, unless you're talking about broadcasting on the internet to any STB in the world, or something like that. : Sorry, didn't realise you intended the email to be private. It seemed : of a nature that would interest other people in this thread. It's ok. I was unsure if everyone wanted to hear my non-beer-goggled responses. Responses are so much more interesting when typed while one's beer-goggled... ;-) scott -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. :: Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and :: a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra :: IPs for triple play stuff. --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> : : Think 20 years down the track. : : Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to : EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. : There simply wont be enough of it. Well, I guess I don't mind a private email going public... There're about 17891328 RFC1918 IPs. Let's say you're going to use 7891328 IPs for internal addressing issues. That still leaves 10 million STB IP addresses for your network. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: surfer(a)mauigateway.com Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:47:59 +1300 Think 20 years down the track. Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. There simply wont be enough of it. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:24 a.m. To: Philip D'Ath Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Hello, : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra IPs for triple play stuff. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: jamie.baddeley(a)vpc.co.nz Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:33:07 +1300 The number of mobile devices with IP addresses now exceeds the number of traditional internet hosts. The gap between these two is growing. Mobile carriers have a more urgent need to use IPv6. The release of IP based set top box's and the like is going to make the problem worse. -----Original Message----- One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO. > > Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering > end to end IPv6 in or from NZ. > > Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some > alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will > lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc. > > It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a > question of when. I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-) > > To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or > are we content to be followers in the transition? That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators. Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that. jamie _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

5 4

Re: [nznog] Fwd: RE: IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

--- ender(a)paradise.gen.nz wrote: From: David Robb <ender(a)paradise.gen.nz> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Scott Weeks wrote: > Comcast has all of them in one AS? Similarly, China will have all 1B > customers in one AS? If not, they can use the same 1918 space in each > one. Also, Comcast are not going to have 100M IPTV subscribers. I got > this from www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=2685 : Which is more complicated? Managing overlapping address blocks, : probably in a system which was never designed to do that, or : moving to a unique IP address per endpoint? (Also probably in a : system which was never designed for IPv6) I would think moving a network that supports many tens of millions of customers to IPv6 would be more complicated than readdressing 1918 space (probably via DHCP) to be non-overlapping. scott

1 0

Fwd: RE: IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

Oops, I didn't send this one to the list. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: : Let's take a specific example. Comcast have 100 million : customers on their own, in their one single network. : This is a single operator. : : Lets assume that in 10 years time China has 1 billion : set top box's. : : RFC1918 is not big enough. IPv4 is barely big enough. : It has to go to IPv6. Comcast has all of them in one AS? Similarly, China will have all 1B customers in one AS? If not, they can use the same 1918 space in each one. Also, Comcast are not going to have 100M IPTV subscribers. I got this from www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?contentId=2685 "In 2001, partly in response to those demands, AT&T agreed to fold its cable systems with those of Comcast Corp., creating the largest ever cable operator with more than 22 million customers." "Cable’s high-speed Internet service ended the quarter (Third Quarter of 2005) with 24.3 million subscribers, and the number of digital cable customers had grown to 27.6 million." This is in the US only, though. scott -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 8:59 a.m. To: Philip D'Ath Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> : : 17 million addresses is simply not enough for a country the size of the : US (and many others). They already have 100 million set top box's : deployed. :-) RFC1918 space is used within a network only. Not across networks. So, one network's IPTV customer can have the same STB IP address as another's when the RCF1918 space is used. You stream from your head-end to your customers only, so there's no need for public IP addressing. The traffic stays within a particular network. That is, unless you're talking about broadcasting on the internet to any STB in the world, or something like that. : Sorry, didn't realise you intended the email to be private. It seemed : of a nature that would interest other people in this thread. It's ok. I was unsure if everyone wanted to hear my non-beer-goggled responses. Responses are so much more interesting when typed while one's beer-goggled... ;-) scott -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. :: Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and :: a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra :: IPs for triple play stuff. --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> : : Think 20 years down the track. : : Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to : EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. : There simply wont be enough of it. Well, I guess I don't mind a private email going public... There're about 17891328 RFC1918 IPs. Let's say you're going to use 7891328 IPs for internal addressing issues. That still leaves 10 million STB IP addresses for your network. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: surfer(a)mauigateway.com Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:47:59 +1300 Think 20 years down the track. Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. There simply wont be enough of it. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:24 a.m. To: Philip D'Ath Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Hello, : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra IPs for triple play stuff. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: jamie.baddeley(a)vpc.co.nz Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:33:07 +1300 The number of mobile devices with IP addresses now exceeds the number of traditional internet hosts. The gap between these two is growing. Mobile carriers have a more urgent need to use IPv6. The release of IP based set top box's and the like is going to make the problem worse. -----Original Message----- One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO. > > Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering > end to end IPv6 in or from NZ. > > Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some > alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will > lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc. > > It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a > question of when. I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-) > > To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or > are we content to be followers in the transition? That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators. Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that. jamie _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Scott Weeks 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

-----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. :: Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and :: a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra :: IPs for triple play stuff. --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> : : Think 20 years down the track. : : Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to : EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. : There simply wont be enough of it. Well, I guess I don't mind a private email going public... There're about 17891328 RFC1918 IPs. Let's say you're going to use 7891328 IPs for internal addressing issues. That still leaves 10 million STB IP addresses for your network. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: surfer(a)mauigateway.com Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: RE: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:47:59 +1300 Think 20 years down the track. Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. There simply wont be enough of it. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:24 a.m. To: Philip D'Ath Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Hello, : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra IPs for triple play stuff. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: jamie.baddeley(a)vpc.co.nz Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:33:07 +1300 The number of mobile devices with IP addresses now exceeds the number of traditional internet hosts. The gap between these two is growing. Mobile carriers have a more urgent need to use IPv6. The release of IP based set top box's and the like is going to make the problem worse. -----Original Message----- One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO. > > Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering > end to end IPv6 in or from NZ. > > Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some > alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will > lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc. > > It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a > question of when. I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-) > > To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or > are we content to be followers in the transition? That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators. Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that. jamie _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

2 1

Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion
by Philip D'Ath 28 Nov '06

28 Nov '06

Think 20 years down the track. Mobile phones and IP set top boxes are likely to EXCEED the size of the RFC1918 address space. There simply wont be enough of it. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:surfer(a)mauigateway.com] Sent: Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:24 a.m. To: Philip D'Ath Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Hello, : The release of IP based set top box's and : the like is going to make the problem worse. Do you mean for IPTV? I use 1918 space for them and a public IP for the DSL router. I haven't used extra IPs for triple play stuff. scott --- pid(a)ifm.net.nz wrote: From: Philip D'Ath <pid(a)ifm.net.nz> To: jamie.baddeley(a)vpc.co.nz Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv4 Exhaustion Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:33:07 +1300 The number of mobile devices with IP addresses now exceeds the number of traditional internet hosts. The gap between these two is growing. Mobile carriers have a more urgent need to use IPv6. The release of IP based set top box's and the like is going to make the problem worse. -----Original Message----- One question that I'd have is how much of that IPv4 space is used, planned to be used, or will never be used? And then I'd ask that same question to APNIC members in NZ who've got IPv4 assignments. And then I'd ask the cellular providers who shall remain unnamed that recently started announcing a /16 of v4 what their expectations of that v4 assignment lifetime is. That's 'the canary in the mine' IMHO. > > Notwithstanding, its still pretty hard to find an upstream provider offering > end to end IPv6 in or from NZ. > > Some of the debate on IPv4 exhaustion is pretty abstract, with some > alarmists saying the end is nigh, others saying that shortage of space will > lead to a secondary and valuable market for selling the space etc. > > It occurs to me that IPv6 is inevitable, its not a question of if, but a > question of when. I agree. Though there comes a point where the When is so far away, it starts to look like an If :-) > > To that end, is there an enthusiasm within the NOG for NZ to be leaders, or > are we content to be followers in the transition? That's a fair question. Whilst there's seems to be no real solid business case to deploy it in the short term or a reason to entertain the idea, frankly at this point in proceedings being a watcher, or follower as you put it, is probably a sensible thing to do for *some* operators. Now if we could convince *the rest of the world* to pay NZ to be a self contained, network of networks v6 test-bed that is an entirely different matter. That would certainly be worth leading on, and I'd be fairly excited about that. jamie _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

[semi-ot] 0800 number ownership
by Jasper Bryant-Greene 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

Hi all, excuse the OT post, but not sure where else to turn. Not really something the helpdesks wish to help with. I currently have 0800 service provided by a company called Supra Limited, run by a certain airline-company-hoax-monger from Nelson [1]. I have serious concerns about the stability of this company. Given that this company does not answer its phones at any time of day or night, does not return emails, and the owner appears to be an 18-year-old who has disappeared off the face of the earth, is there a way to get my 0800 number back? It's still working, but as far as I'm concerned these guys could stop paying the bills at any time, and then it will be down while I sort things out. Any ideas, anyone that can help? Replies off-list. Once again, excuse the OT post. [1] http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Lamar+Hargreaves should provide some hilarity. -- Jasper Bryant-Greene Director Album Limited jasper(a)albumltd.co.nz +64 21 708 334 / 0800 425 286 http://www.albumltd.co.nz/

3 2

Re: [nznog] Observation
by Martin Kealey 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

> > Just an observation: if ISPs are planning on introducing measures such > > as hardware spam filters that drop connections without the standard SMTP > > response code, or greylisting, or similar measures likely to have > > widespread effect, a simple post to this list detailing what is about to > > happen would probably save a lot of people a lot of time :) LARTs will be applied in appropriate places... :-) > And/or they could just answer postmaster@, like good little > mail admins. As of my arrival, that is being done here at Ihug; I apologise on behalf of my predecessors for not doing so. And now that I've cleared out the 119000 messages in the postmaster mailbox, you might get some answers. :-) -Martin

1 0

Observation
by Jasper Bryant-Greene 27 Nov '06

27 Nov '06

Just an observation: if ISPs are planning on introducing measures such as hardware spam filters that drop connections without the standard SMTP response code, or greylisting, or similar measures likely to have widespread effect, a simple post to this list detailing what is about to happen would probably save a lot of people a lot of time :) -- Jasper Bryant-Greene Director Album Limited jasper(a)albumltd.co.nz +64 21 708 334 / 0800 425 286 http://www.albumltd.co.nz/

2 1

Ihug mail admins
by TreeNet Admin 26 Nov '06

26 Nov '06

Could one of you in charge of the ihug mail servers please contact me. You may need to use abuse(a)treenetnz.com. AYJ Treehouse Networks Ltd.

3 2

Searching For ...
by David Farrar 26 Nov '06

26 Nov '06

To keep this slightly on-topic I'll promise to shout a beer at the next NZNOG Conference to anyone who can supply an e-mail address or other contact details for any of the people below. Rex Croft, ex Wai Uni Alan Marsden, ex pl.net Chris Tyler, ex-Xtra Peter Whimp, ex Tuia Patrick O'Brien, ex Domainz Tim & Nick Wood, ex Ihug Responses directly to me would be great. Many thanks David Farrar

3 2

Xtra mail admin
by Jasper Bryant-Greene 26 Nov '06

26 Nov '06

Can a mail admin from Xtra please contact me off list. Thanks -- Jasper Bryant-Greene Director Album Limited jasper(a)albumltd.co.nz +64 21 708 334 / 0800 425 286 http://www.albumltd.co.nz/

1 0

Re: [nznog] [Fwd: [Computer-support] Greylisting - one day after]
by Richard 23 Nov '06

23 Nov '06

Hi Russell Russell Fulton wrote: > This might be of interest to NZNOG members -- we have just > implemented grey listing for some addresses and the results have been > dramatic to say the least... Likewise, I've been using greylisting on my various domains, some of which have been receiving spam for many years, for a year or so now. The initial results were staggering, but in recent months I've started to get a trickle comiag through again - looks like the scum are searching for open relays again. Still, at least *that* problem isn't as big as it once was. Cheers Richard -- Richard Stevenson Freelance Unix geek 027 285 5873

7 7

ihug email
by Jasper Bryant-Greene 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Could someone from ihug please contact me off-list regarding your email servers. Thanks -- Jasper Bryant-Greene Director Album Limited jasper(a)albumltd.co.nz +64 21 708 334 / 0800 425 286 http://www.albumltd.co.nz/

1 0

Government changes 2.3 GHz rules (and other bands)
by Ian McDonald 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

>From http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=27807 Government promotes wireless broadband investment The government's decision to reallocate spectrum for wireless broadband is another essential step in providing New Zealanders with better, more competitive access to broadband, says Communications Minister David Cunliffe. The decision will see spectrum in the 2.3 GHz range – suitable for such emerging wireless broadband applications as WiMAX – put up for auction in early 2007. While current right-holders do not have to give up their rights before they expire in 2010, some may choose to do so. It is expected that some of the 2.3 GHz spectrum could be available for development immediately after the auction, enabling early development of new broadband wireless services. Other decisions include making a 16MHz block as a "managed park" suitable for local and regional broadband operations, and developing policies to facilitate future use of other spectrum suitable for broadband wireless access (BWA). Along with the other recent measures to develop a vibrant, competitive ICT sector, the availability of additional broadband wireless spectrum will help unlock the potential of these new technologies, and aid New Zealand's economic transformation into an innovative and creative knowledge-based economy. "This decision reflects the fairest and most effective way of giving new and existing wireless broadband services providers the opportunity to develop this very important spectrum for broadband in New Zealand," Mr Cunliffe said. "BWA technology for this band is only just starting to become available. It is critical that we create the right conditions for its future deployment by giving a wide range of players the opportunity and the certainty they need to make a long-term investment." "How we run the process and allocate the rights will obviously be critical. A spectrum cap of 30 MHz per operator – which generally accepted industry standards indicate would be ample – would ensure at least three separate lots of spectrum will be on offer. Successful purchasers will be required to implement services within a specified period." This announcement reaffirms a 2004 government decision that existing rights would not be renewed when they expire in 2010. It follows public consultation in which industry feedback showed strong support for immediate reallocation of this spectrum. Background information: Summary of decisions Allocation of the 2.3 GHz spectrum Up to eight 10 MHz-wide management rights in the 2.3 GHz band will be reallocated by auction as soon as is practicable. A 16 MHz block will be made available as a managed spectrum park from 2010, or earlier if available. The Ministry of Economic Development expects to conduct the auction in the first quarter of 2007, with the following conditions: * a spectrum cap of 30 MHz per operator will apply for two years from the date of allocation; and * right-holders will be required to implement services within a specified period or face revocation. Subject to discussions with right-holders for early relinquishment of their current 2.3 GHz spectrum rights, some of the auctioned spectrum rights will be available for use immediately after the auction, while a smaller amount may not become available until current rights expire in 2010. Transition plan for 2.5 GHz spectrum Spectrum at 2.5 GHz is suitable for BWA technology in a manner equivalent to the 2.3 GHz band, but the band is currently used for television outside broadcasting (e.g. linking back to the studio). The ministry will develop and implement a transition plan, in consultation with stakeholders, to make this band available for future BWA allocation, once technical parameters have been determined at the World Radio Conference in 2007. New General User Licences at 5.4 GHz and 60 GHz The ministry intends to create a general user licence ('public park' licence) to facilitate the deployment of BWA services at 5.4 GHz by June 2007, subject to suitable protection for existing radar applications in the band. A general user licence will also be issued for BWA services at 60 GHz by June 2007, with conditions that balance technical neutrality with spectrum utility and efficiency. 70, 80, 90 GHz and other bands There are at present no policies for licensing of the 70, 80 and 90 GHz bands, but interest in using these bands for BWA is becoming evident. In anticipation of future demand, the ministry is developing policy proposals for these bands. There is some interest in other bands, including projected changes to the existing 921 to 929 MHz general user licence and the 10.5 GHz bands. Policy and technical work for these bands is continuing. -- Ian McDonald Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com WAND Network Research Group Department of Computer Science University of Waikato New Zealand

1 0

NZNOG 2007: CFP: Network Systems Administration MiniConf
by Ewen McNeill 22 Nov '06

22 Nov '06

Call for Presentations for NZNOG 2007: Network Systems Administration Mini-Conference In conjunction with the NZNOG 2007 conference (http://www.nznog.org/) we will be holding a network systems administration mini-conference on the tutorial day, Wednesday 2007-01-31. The NZNOG 2007 conference will be held in Palmerston North between 2007-01-31 and 2007-02-02. Registration at the NZNOG 2007 conference is a mandatory prerequisite for attendence at the mini-conference; we expect there will be no additional charge. The mini-conference's focus is on "Layer 7" issues to do with network and ISP operations, including providing customer services (email, DNS, etc) and provisioning and management topics. We are now seeking proposals for presentations at the mini-conference. We have openings for: - 50-60 minute full presentations - 25-30 minute half presentations - 5-10 minute "lightning talks" Presentations are expected to be directed at a technical audience, and focused on a system administration area related to network or ISP operations. Some possible topics: - Email servers and spam filtering techniques - DNS servers, registry systems - server security and best sysadmin practices in an internet provider environment - VoIP servers - network management / monitoring tools - RADIUS/TACACS - Netflow, routing, and traffic analysis tools - server tuning for high performance networking - provisioning tools - honeypots and other security techniques - network based storage - high availability and disaster recovery for network services - virtual machine technology for network services - *nix based routing and fire-walling - tools you need that you may not know about We are happy to discuss the suitability of other topics with intending presenters. Timeline: - proposals due by 2006-12-04 - selection advised by 2006-12-11 - draft program published by 2006-12-18 - presentations 2007-01-31 Please send all proposals and questions to <talks(a)nznog.miniconf.org> Simon Lyall and Ewen McNeill, Conveeners

1 0

Notification of NZRR Database changes
by NZRR Database Notifications 21 Nov '06

21 Nov '06

Dear Colleague, This is to notify you that some object(s) in NZRR database which you either maintain or are listed as to-be-notified have been added, deleted or changed. These objects are used to configure the various NZIX route servers (http://nzix.net/) so you can expect the relevant servers to be reloaded in the near future. The reloading of the servers is staggered over a period of time so that if you are peering with both servers at an exchange, you can maintain at least one BGP session at all times and consequently a full set of routes. --- PREVIOUS OBJECT: aut-num: AS23754 as-name: NZRR-AS23754 descr: CityLink admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR import: from AS9560 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS9560 announce AS23754 import: from AS9439 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS9439 announce AS23754 import: from AS24385 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS24385 announce AS23754 import: from AS7657 accept {0.0.0.0/0} export: to AS7657 announce AS23754 notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: asjl(a)citylink.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20050801 source: NZRR REPLACED BY: aut-num: AS23754 as-name: NZRR-AS23754 descr: CityLink descr: WIX peering at '202.7.0.32' descr: see Citylink RT job #7338 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR import: from AS9560 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS9560 announce AS23754 import: from AS9439 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS9439 announce AS23754 import: from AS24385 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS24385 announce AS23754 import: from AS7657 accept {0.0.0.0/0} export: to AS7657 announce AS23754 import: from AS9439 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS9439 announce AS23754 notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: asjl(a)citylink.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20061122 source: NZRR --- PREVIOUS OBJECT: route-set: AS9439:RS-ROUTES:AS23754 descr: advertised to AS9439 by CityLink - AS23754 members: 198.48.0.0/22^22-29, 202.8.44.0/22^22-29, 202.7.6.0/23^23-29, 97.64.46.0/24^24-29, 198.32.71.0/24^24-29, 202.7.5.0/24^24-29, 203.118.144.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: asjl(a)citylink.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20061116 source: NZRR REPLACED BY: route-set: AS9439:RS-ROUTES:AS23754 descr: Route set advertised to AS9439 by Cafenet-Free - AS23754 members: 198.48.3.192/26^26-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc(a)citylink.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20061122 source: NZRR

1 0

Re: [nznog] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: [Computer-support] Greylisting - one day after]
by Russell Fulton 15 Nov '06

15 Nov '06

> > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [nznog] [Fwd: [Computer-support] > Greylisting - one day after] > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:08:46 +1300 > From: Jasper Bryant-Greene <jasper(a)albumltd.co.nz> > Organisation: Album Limited > To: Richard <richard(a)alternativeuniverse.net> > CC: Russell Fulton <r.fulton(a)auckland.ac.nz>, > nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > References: <2.1.1-1800921-393-A-OEWW(a)222.154.242.106> > > > > Question around this - we are currently looking at > implementing it, but > we have three mail servers behind a load balancer. The software we're > looking at is postgrey (as we use Postfix), but it uses BDB database > files... > > Which means each server has an individual greylisting > database, and mail > could potentially (worst case) be bounced three times before getting > through. Has anyone solved this problem already? With BDB database files you really don't have a lot (any?) options. You could put the file on a NFS share and let all 3 servers use it, but locking issues and overall BDB speed would probably impact your performance greatly. The best solution in this case would be to bring a new server that will run a real database (MySQL, Oracle). If you use a greylisting package that supports these databases (gld does), you can have all servers point to this server and use one central greylisting database. Of course, this way you have a single point of failure (while gld will allow e-mails to flow if the database is not available, you loose greylisting, of course). We at the moment have local MySQL databases on each server. This means that the greylisting delay could be longer, but as we don't have real load balancer but use DNS only, so far this hasn't been the case. As far as I can see, actually, remote MTAs always came back to exactly the same server they were originally greylisted on, probably due to DNS caching on their side. Bojan

2 1

Notification of NZRR Database changes
by NZRR Database Notifications 15 Nov '06

15 Nov '06

Dear Colleague, This is to notify you that some object(s) in NZRR database which you either maintain or are listed as to-be-notified have been added, deleted or changed. These objects are used to configure the various NZIX route servers (http://nzix.net/) so you can expect the relevant servers to be reloaded in the near future. The reloading of the servers is staggered over a period of time so that if you are peering with both servers at an exchange, you can maintain at least one BGP session at all times and consequently a full set of routes. --- PREVIOUS OBJECT: route-set: AS9439:RS-ROUTES:AS23754 descr: advertised to AS9439 by CityLink - AS23754 members: 198.48.0.0/22^22-29, 202.8.44.0/22^22-29, 198.32.71.0/24^24-29, 203.118.144.0/24^24-29, 202.7.4.32/28^28-29, 202.7.7.88/29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc(a)citylink.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20050926 source: NZRR REPLACED BY: route-set: AS9439:RS-ROUTES:AS23754 descr: advertised to AS9439 by CityLink - AS23754 members: 198.48.0.0/22^22-29, 202.8.44.0/22^22-29, 202.7.6.0/23^23-29, 97.64.46.0/24^24-29, 198.32.71.0/24^24-29, 202.7.5.0/24^24-29, 203.118.144.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: asjl(a)citylink.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20061116 source: NZRR

1 0

Notification of NZRR Database changes
by NZRR Database Notifications 15 Nov '06

15 Nov '06

Dear Colleague, This is to notify you that some object(s) in NZRR database which you either maintain or are listed as to-be-notified have been added, deleted or changed. These objects are used to configure the various NZIX route servers (http://nzix.net/) so you can expect the relevant servers to be reloaded in the near future. The reloading of the servers is staggered over a period of time so that if you are peering with both servers at an exchange, you can maintain at least one BGP session at all times and consequently a full set of routes. --- PREVIOUS OBJECT: route-set: AS9560:RS-ROUTES:AS23754 descr: advertised to AS9560 by CityLink - AS23754 members: 198.48.0.0/22^22-29, 202.8.44.0/22^22-29, 202.7.6.0/23^23-29, 198.32.71.0/24^24-29, 202.7.5.0/24^24-29, 203.118.144.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: asjl(a)citylink.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20050624 source: NZRR REPLACED BY: route-set: AS9560:RS-ROUTES:AS23754 descr: advertised to AS9560 by CityLink - AS23754 members: 198.48.0.0/22^22-29, 202.8.44.0/22^22-29, 202.7.6.0/23^23-29, 97.64.46.0/24^24-29, 198.32.71.0/24^24-29, 202.7.5.0/24^24-29, 203.118.144.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: asjl(a)citylink.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20061116 source: NZRR

1 0

[Fwd: [Computer-support] Greylisting - one day after]
by Russell Fulton 15 Nov '06

15 Nov '06

Hi Folks, This might be of interest to NZNOG members -- we have just implemented grey listing for some addresses and the results have been dramatic to say the least... Russell -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Computer-support] Greylisting - one day after Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:50:26 +1300 From: Bojan Zdrnja <b.zdrnja(a)auckland.ac.nz> To: Computer Support <computer-support(a)list.auckland.ac.nz> Hi All, Yesterday at 12:00 (mid day) I enabled greylisting on our e-mail cluster. At the moment we are greylisting only machines that don't have reverse DNS entries, or match one of our predefined name regular expressions (these are matching on modem/dialup/cable/adsl machines). The results of this has been amazing - we are seeing a dramatic decrease in processed spam (almost 10 times!). I'm hoping that you are seeing effects of this in your mailboxes as well - there should be overall less spam (marked and unmarked). I'm attaching two graphs that are showing this. The first graph (total-messages.PNG) shows total messages received after I turned on greylising. Green are legitimate messages, blue is spam, red are infected messages. The second graph (CPU-groucho.PNG) shows CPU utilization on groucho (smtpa - the first SMTP machine). For some reason spammers like to hit this machine the most so you can see last 7 days. Now, this works great at the moment but spammers will adapt and improve their software. My wild guess is that this will help for maybe 6 months to a year, but it will definitely give us some time to prepare for future spam waves. Bojan

2 1

Re: [nznog] [Fwd: [Computer-support] Greylisting - one day after]
by Mark Seward 15 Nov '06

15 Nov '06

On 11/16/06, Daniel <daniel(a)fx.net.nz> wrote: > > Which means each server has an individual greylisting database, and mail > > could potentially (worst case) be bounced three times before getting > > through. Has anyone solved this problem already? .. > http://sqlgrey.sourceforge.net/ We have postfix+sqlgrey deployed across several mail hosts. It would be nice to have a replicated postgres behind it but otherwise it does the job very nicely. Also seen here: Similar dramatic reduction in inbound crap and recent increase in abuse of relays behind legit whitelisted hosts. Cheers, Mark.

1 0

Inbound mail filtering at Ihug
by Martin Kealey 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Hi folks, Just a heads-up: We've recently tightened up the reverse & forward DNS tests applied by our inbound SMTP servers (zuul.ihug.co.nz); sending hosts with mismatched DNS entries are now likely to have all messages rejected. If you need an exception to this rule please let us know (presumably by phone...) -Martin Kealey (Systems Engineer, ihüg)

3 2

Re: [nznog] Inbound mail filtering at Ihug
by Martin Kealey 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Ok, before I get a complete deluge of replies... Personally I agree that dropping connections without explanation is, to say the least, unhelpful. I only started here on Monday so some things might take longer than you'd expect, but I'm already looking into this and other outstanding email issues. -Martin

1 0

Invite to IPV6 Industry Update
by Martyn Pratt (marpratt) 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Hi all, for those with an interest in IPv6, Tony Hain co-chair of the IETF working group developing IPv6 Transition tools will be speaking in Wellington and Auckland, please see below for more details . If anyone would like more info please feel free to contact me directly. Cheers Martyn Industry Update-IPV6 Please join us for an informative update from visiting Cisco Senior Technical Leader Tony Hain on IPV6 Developments and Trends Wellington Event When: Friday 1st December Where: Hotel Intercontinental, Thordon Room, Grey Street What Time: 9am to 10.30am RSVP: Trafong(a)cisco.com Please reply by Tuedsay 21st Nov and advise city in response Auckland Event When: Tuesday 28th November Where: Cisco Auckland Boardroom, L25 ASB Building, 135 Albert St What Time: 3pm- 4pm RSVP: Trafong(a)cisco.com Please reply by Tuedsay 21st Nov and advise city in response More about Tony Hain Tony is currently the Senior Technical Leader, IPv6 technologies with Cisco Systems. In addition to providing guidance to the various internal product teams, he was also co-chair of the IETF working group developing IPv6 Transition tools. His IETF participation since 1987 includes a term on the Internet Architecture Board from 1997 - 2001. Named an IPv6 Forum Fellow in 2004, he is currently serving as Technology Director on the forum's North American IPv6 task force steering committee ________________________________ <http://www.cisco.com/> Martyn Pratt Systems Engineer, New Zealand Cisco Systems, Inc. ________________________________ Contact Information: e-mail: Phone: DDI: Mobile: Web: martyn.pratt(a)cisco.com +64 9 355 1950 +64 9 355 1975 +64 21 504 632 www.cisco.com ________________________________

1 0

Speedtest for every ISP for ispmap.co.nz
by Barry Murphy 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Howdy, Could someone from each ISP send me a link to a speedtest on one of your servers, that is if you have a speed test site for your ISP, this will be linked from http://www.ispmap.co.nz/searchisp.php to your speed test site. Secondly if you have tr.php (from http://tr.meta.net.nz) please advise the link at the same time so we can do something like http://www.ispmap.co.nz/yourIP.php (the traceroute to your IP) from each ISP's page. The idea is to allow users to speed test their connection and run traceroute tests to themselves from multiple providers. To make like easier for myself, please reply with the following: ISP Name: Speedtest URL: Traceroute URL: Are these run by the ISP (yes) or a third party (no): Please reply offlist. Thanks Regards Barry Murphy -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

1 0

ihug email issues
by Quintin Russ 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

Hi, Can someone from ihug please contact me offlist regarding ihug mail servers dropping connection from our servers. Thanks, Quintin

2 2

Notice of maintenance work on ns2.dns.net.nz
by DNS 12 Nov '06

12 Nov '06

Please note we will be doing some maintenance work on the machine that serves ns2.dns.net.nz between 19:00 and 21:00 on Monday the 30th of October. During this time ns2.dns.net.nz may not be available. Throughout this period the other six .nz zone servers (ns1,3,4,5,6,7) will be available. Please contact me if you have any questions. Dave Baker .nz Registry Services support(a)nzrs.net.nz

1 1

OT - Brother HL2700CN w Linux reports please
by John ＠ netTRUST 12 Nov '06

12 Nov '06

Any feedback on this printer's operation with Linux / CUPS using the network interface? Thanks.

2 1