- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

iSERVE support spamming NZNOG posters - please stop the madness!
by Dobbins, Roland 27 Feb '10

27 Feb '10

Whoever own this, please stop it from autoresponding to NZNOG messages, yes? Begin forwarded message: > From: iSERVE Support <support(a)iserve.co.nz> > Date: February 28, 2010 10:45:02 AM GMT+07:00 > To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins(a)arbor.net> > Subject: RE: [Ticket #1752887] RE: [nznog] Stateful firewalls > > > Hi, > > This is a quick, automatically generated email to let you know that we have got your email, and our team will get on to it just as soon as they can. > > If you need to get in touch with us in the mean time about the same issue please quote the ticket number or simply reply to this email. > > Thanks, > iSERVE Support > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice. -- H.L. Mencken

3 2

Re: [nznog] [AusNOG] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Skeeve Stevens 27 Feb '10

27 Feb '10

As usual Mark, your contributions are unbiased and well thought out. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Smith > [mailto:nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org] > Sent: Saturday, 27 February 2010 1:24 PM > To: Skeeve Stevens > Cc: apnic-talk(a)apnic.net; ausnog(a)ausnog.net; nznog; pacnog(a)pacnog.org > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:08:19 +1100 > Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve(a)eintellego.net> wrote: > > > This is an FYI for those interested. Btw, RIPE NCC is the European > version of APNIC for those that don't know. > > > > The ITU are looking at bypassing the RIR's (Ripe, APNIC, ARIN, > AFRINIC, LACNIC) and becoming their own numbering authority. Clearly > this is not the desired option as the structure already exists for > exactly what they want to do, but rather than regionally, they want to > do it per country.... for who knows what reason. > > > > Because they're bellheads. > > > -- > > Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director > > eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists > > skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net > > Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 > > Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve > > www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego > > -- > > NOC, NOC, who's there? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: admin-bounces(a)tuenti.com [mailto:admin-bounces(a)tuenti.com] On > Behalf Of Axel Pawlik > > Sent: Friday, 26 February 2010 3:20 AM > > To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > > Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position > On The ITU IPv6 Group > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > As you may be aware, the International Telecommunication Union's > (ITU) > > Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) has convened an ITU > > IPv6 Group, the first meeting of which will be held on 15-16 March > > 2010 in Geneva, Switzerland. Information on this group is available > at: > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/othergroups/ipv6/ > > > > Among the group's Terms of Reference are the following: > > > > * To draft a global policy proposal for the reservation of a large > > IPv6 block, taking into consideration the future needs of developing > > countries (as outlined in paragraph 23 of ITU document C09/29). > > > > * To further study possible methodologies and related > > implementation mechanisms to ensure 'equitable access' to IPv6 > > resource by countries. > > > > * To further study the possibility for ITU to become another > > Internet Registry, and propose policies and procedures for ITU to > > manage a reserved IPv6 block. > > > > * To further study the feasibility and advisability of > implementing > > the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model for those countries who > > would request national allocations. > > > > The ITU IPv6 Group is open to ITU Member States and Sector Members of > > ITU-T and ITU-D. RIRs that are not members have also been extended an > > invitation to participate. > > > > IPv6 address policy is clearly of critical importance to the RIPE NCC > > membership, and the unsympathetic implementation of any of the Terms > > of Reference stated above would have serious impact on the global IP > > address distribution environment. > > > > Members of RIPE NCC staff will be participating in this meeting of > the > > ITU IPv6 Group to represent the interests of our members and > community. > > > > The position of the RIPE NCC is based on support for smooth and > > reliable working of the Internet globally, and for the bottom-up, > open > > policy development process that allows for all stakeholders, > including > > business, government and the technical community, to participate. > > > > Some of the issues addressed in the Terms of Reference listed above > > are a cause for concern because they could directly affect the RIPE > > NCC operations as a Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Therefore, the > > RIPE NCC position on the Terms of Reference is as follows: > > > > * The needs of developing economies in IP address policy are > > important. Network operators in these economies have fair and equal > > access to IPv6 resources from the Regional Internet Registries > (RIRs), > > and to the Policy Development Processes in their RIR and globally. > > Each of the RIRs has been allocated an equal block of IPv6 to > > distribute to networks in their region. (eg. AfriNIC has been > > allocated the same sized block of IPv6 as the RIPE NCC). > > > > * IPv6 allocations made by RIRs to date amount to the equivalent of > > 500 times the size of the entire IPv4 address pool, allocated to > > networks in over 150 economies. > > > > * If a significant sector in the Internet community feels that the > > "reservation of a large IPv6 block" for "the future needs of > > developing countries" is warranted, the open, bottom-up Policy > > Development Processes (PDPs) of the RIRs provide an appropriate forum > > in which to argue that case and develop such a policy. > > > > * The RIRs, as the recognised stewards of Internet Number Resources, > > are working, individually, jointly, and with invited experts, to > > engage the ITU membership. We have closely followed discussions in > the > > ITU to date. The RIPE NCC does not believe that there are any > problems > > that would be solved by the shift to a country-based allocation > system > > or the installation of the ITU as an Internet Registry. > > > > The purpose of this email is to ensure that all RIPE NCC members are > > informed of the RIPE NCC's participation in this ITU IPv6 Group, and > > our position. If you have any comments or questions regarding this > > information, please send an email to <ncc(a)ripe.net>. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Axel Pawlik > > Managing Director > > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > > First click on General and then click on Edit. > > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > _______________________________________________ > > AusNOG mailing list > > AusNOG(a)lists.ausnog.net > > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

2 1

Re: [nznog] [pacnog] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Scott Weeks 27 Feb '10

27 Feb '10

Can we not cross-post? Some of us are getting 80 gazillion copies of every email. scott Only cross-posting once.

1 0

Re: [nznog] [apnic-talk] [AusNOG] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Jeffrey A. Williams 27 Feb '10

27 Feb '10

2 1

RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
by Skeeve Stevens 26 Feb '10

26 Feb '10

This is an FYI for those interested. Btw, RIPE NCC is the European version of APNIC for those that don't know. The ITU are looking at bypassing the RIR's (Ripe, APNIC, ARIN, AFRINIC, LACNIC) and becoming their own numbering authority. Clearly this is not the desired option as the structure already exists for exactly what they want to do, but rather than regionally, they want to do it per country.... for who knows what reason. -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? -----Original Message----- From: admin-bounces(a)tuenti.com [mailto:admin-bounces(a)tuenti.com] On Behalf Of Axel Pawlik Sent: Friday, 26 February 2010 3:20 AM To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [Admin] [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Dear Colleagues, As you may be aware, the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) has convened an ITU IPv6 Group, the first meeting of which will be held on 15-16 March 2010 in Geneva, Switzerland. Information on this group is available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/othergroups/ipv6/ Among the group's Terms of Reference are the following: * To draft a global policy proposal for the reservation of a large IPv6 block, taking into consideration the future needs of developing countries (as outlined in paragraph 23 of ITU document C09/29). * To further study possible methodologies and related implementation mechanisms to ensure 'equitable access' to IPv6 resource by countries. * To further study the possibility for ITU to become another Internet Registry, and propose policies and procedures for ITU to manage a reserved IPv6 block. * To further study the feasibility and advisability of implementing the CIR [Country Internet Registry] model for those countries who would request national allocations. The ITU IPv6 Group is open to ITU Member States and Sector Members of ITU-T and ITU-D. RIRs that are not members have also been extended an invitation to participate. IPv6 address policy is clearly of critical importance to the RIPE NCC membership, and the unsympathetic implementation of any of the Terms of Reference stated above would have serious impact on the global IP address distribution environment. Members of RIPE NCC staff will be participating in this meeting of the ITU IPv6 Group to represent the interests of our members and community. The position of the RIPE NCC is based on support for smooth and reliable working of the Internet globally, and for the bottom-up, open policy development process that allows for all stakeholders, including business, government and the technical community, to participate. Some of the issues addressed in the Terms of Reference listed above are a cause for concern because they could directly affect the RIPE NCC operations as a Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Therefore, the RIPE NCC position on the Terms of Reference is as follows: * The needs of developing economies in IP address policy are important. Network operators in these economies have fair and equal access to IPv6 resources from the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and to the Policy Development Processes in their RIR and globally. Each of the RIRs has been allocated an equal block of IPv6 to distribute to networks in their region. (eg. AfriNIC has been allocated the same sized block of IPv6 as the RIPE NCC). * IPv6 allocations made by RIRs to date amount to the equivalent of 500 times the size of the entire IPv4 address pool, allocated to networks in over 150 economies. * If a significant sector in the Internet community feels that the "reservation of a large IPv6 block" for "the future needs of developing countries" is warranted, the open, bottom-up Policy Development Processes (PDPs) of the RIRs provide an appropriate forum in which to argue that case and develop such a policy. * The RIRs, as the recognised stewards of Internet Number Resources, are working, individually, jointly, and with invited experts, to engage the ITU membership. We have closely followed discussions in the ITU to date. The RIPE NCC does not believe that there are any problems that would be solved by the shift to a country-based allocation system or the installation of the ITU as an Internet Registry. The purpose of this email is to ensure that all RIPE NCC members are informed of the RIPE NCC's participation in this ITU IPv6 Group, and our position. If you have any comments or questions regarding this information, please send an email to <ncc(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [nznog] [AusNOG] MEDIA RELEASE FROM EINTELLEGO - eintellego encourages APNIC members to vote for local representative
by Shain Singh 25 Feb '10

25 Feb '10

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Mark Smith < nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:50:31 +1100 > Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve(a)eintellego.net> wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > This is a media release which is specifically of interest to the ANZ*NOG > lists. > > > > Did you really need to send a Media Release to this list announce your > opinion here? Just stating it would have been fine. I've > understood lists like this one are to be corporate PR/marketing > free zones, and media releases are definitely corporate PR/marketing. > > > I encourage all APNIC members to not hesitate to support Jonny Martin in > his run for the APNIC EC. > > > > If you aren't interested in this post, please just devnull it. > > > > Maybe next time you find yourself writing that, think about whether > you really should be sending what you've written. You're basically > saying to everybody to use the delete key/button if necessary - and if > people on this list know how the Internet works they probably already > know how to delete emails, and don't need to be told what do with > ones they aren't interested in ... > > +1 Manila is also spelt incorrectly in the press release.. Lucky it's for an ANZ rep and not a Filipino one. </pedantic> -- Shaineel Singh e: shain.singh(a)gmail.com p: +61 422 921 951 -- "Too many have dispensed with generosity to practice charity" - Albert Camus

1 0

MEDIA RELEASE FROM EINTELLEGO - eintellego encourages APNIC members to vote for local representative
by Skeeve Stevens 25 Feb '10

25 Feb '10

Hey all, This is a media release which is specifically of interest to the ANZ*NOG lists. I encourage all APNIC members to not hesitate to support Jonny Martin in his run for the APNIC EC. If you aren't interested in this post, please just devnull it. ...Skeeve MEDIA RELEASE For Immediate Release eintellego encourages APNIC members to vote for local representative SYDNEY, Feb 24, 2010 - eintellego is encouraging all APNIC members in Australia and New Zealand to vote in the upcoming elections for the Executive Committee being held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia at the APNIC 29 member meeting early in March 2010. At each APNIC meeting there are hundreds of Australian and New Zealand members of APNIC who fail to exercise their voting power. At APNIC 28 held in Manilla, the Australia and New Zealand internet communities rallied and were successful in getting James Spenceley, CEO of Vocus Communications elected to the EC. For some years now the Australian and New Zealand communities have been under-represented and as we have the opportunity to get additional representation, eintellego is encouraging all members to either vote, or assign a proxy vote to someone who is attending the conference. eintellego is fully supporting Jonny Martin, a NZ citizen and Internet Analyst with Packet Clearing House, as a nominee for the APNIC EC. Jonny Martin started work in the Internet Industry with Telecom New Zealand in 1998 working on access technologies. After Telecom Jonny held senior roles with ISPs in NZ such as CityLink and FX Networks working primarily on fibre optic deployments. In his spare time and holidays, Jonny assists with training at events such as Apricot, SANOG and NZNOG and has been actively involved with the NZ Internet Community for many years. Since 2006, Jonny has been a Councillor of InternetNZ, the body which manages the .nz namespace and .nz registry. eintellego has had the pleasure of working with Jonny and hopes that all APNIC members in the region will rally to help get him elected. Assigning proxy votes or voting online closes on the 3rd of March 2010 at 9am (KL time) with the election being held on the 5th of March. If any members are considering casting their vote and need assistance, they can contact APNIC directly on +617 3858 3100 or helpdesk(a)apnic.net Skeeve Stevens, CEO of eintellego will be onsite at the conference and election, and any members who want to assign a proxy are able to complete a pre-filled proxy form available at www.eintellego.net/apnicec29proxy.pdf<http://www.eintellego.net/apnicec29proxy.pdf>. Please make sure that this form is completed by the official 'Corporate Contact' for your APNIC membership. About eintellego eintellego is a specialist network and systems integrator to the ISP industry and wider corporate world, where cutting edge networking is required. eintellego operates all across Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific region. http://www.eintellego.net/ Editorial contacts: Skeeve Stevens, CEO +61414 753 383 skeeve(a)eintellego.net eintellego Pty Ltd - www.eintellego.net -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve(a)eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.

2 1

Re: [nznog] Stateful firewalls
by Joel Wiramu Pauling 24 Feb '10

24 Feb '10

On 25 February 2010 22:30, Joel Wiramu Pauling <aenertia(a)aenertia.net> wrote: >> The place do to this is at the edges via routing policies and stateless ACLs, not in firewalls. >> >> And, no, the largest enterprise firewalls make all these marketing claims about the numbers they can handle, but the reality is quite different - having spent the better part of a decade working for the largest vendor of firewalls in the world, I can assure you of that. >> There is a trend in router manufacturers to offer flow classification add-in modules for doing service differentiation. While not state-full firewalls as such, they do deep packet inspection and flow tagging in much the same way. These are designed to scale with the routing capacity's. And they definitely exist. Also there is currently a bunch of cool pf kernalspace extensions being added to openbsd to allow similar offload to GPU's which would bring this sort of ability to consumer level hardware. This is a little off topic from the original context however. -JoelW

1 0

Be Heard! APNIC Community Consultation Next Week
by Elly Tawhai 24 Feb '10

24 Feb '10

_______________________________________________________________________ Be Heard! APNIC Community Consultation Next Week _______________________________________________________________________ Hi NZNOG Community, Internet address management may be on the brink of change. The ITU (International Telecommunications Union) is studying the creation of an alternative International Internet Registry model to operate in parallel to the existing RIR model. In collaboration with the NRO, APNIC is hosting a special session at APNIC 29 / APRICOT 2010 to give the global Internet community an opportunity to discuss the issues and ramifications of the alternative model proposed by the ITU. APNIC invites all Members of the global Internet Community to participate at: IPv6 Address Management and ITU - Is an "additional parallel structure" required? Where: APNIC 29, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia When: 14:00 - 15:30 (UTC +8), Wednesday, 3 March 2010 APNIC is an ITU-D sector Member and will attend the ITU IPv6 Working Group meeting in March that has been commissioned to study this issue in depth. APNIC will be reporting feedback from our Consultation to ensure community feedback is heard. Topics of discussion -------------------- 1. Where is the demand for this alternative system coming from? Would competition between IP address management systems bring any benefits to current and future Internet stakeholders? 2. Is it realistic to expect the policies of an alternative model as proposed by the ITU, to be consistent with RIR policies? Would the possibility of nationalized addressing systems lead to divergent policy systems? What would be the risks to the Internet of divergent policy environments? 3. If the ITU were to become an Internet registry, how would the ITU model affect the existing RIR model of open, bottom-up, and consensus-driven policy-making? More detailed information is available on: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/program/consultation How can you participate? ------------------------ Onsite ------ APNIC 29, Conference Hall 2, Kuala Lumpur Convention Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Remotely -------- Remote participants can watch via webcasting and can ask questions and make comments for the record via Jabber Chat. These tools can be adjusted to accommodate low bandwidth. Submissions ----------- APNIC is accepting written submissions. Please post your submission, identifying your name and affiliation and your comments on any or all of three discussion topics as well as general comments to: ipv6(a)apnic.net More Information ---------------- For more information on remote participation, visit: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/remote For more information on the APNIC 29 program, visit: http://meetings.apnic.net/29 For further assistance, contact: helpdesk(a)apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, QLD http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: [nznog] [Ticket #1751456] RE: Stateful firewalls
by Mark Foster 24 Feb '10

24 Feb '10

Erm, seriously? iSERVE support is going to generate a trouble ticket for EVERY new NZNOG thread? This could be entertaining... On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, iSERVE Support wrote: > > Hi, > > This is a quick, automatically generated email to let you know that we have got your email, and our team will get on to it just as soon as they can. > > If you need to get in touch with us in the mean time about the same issue please quote the ticket number or simply reply to this email. > > Thanks, > iSERVE Support > > >

6 5