- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Vendor reception at NZNOG - Open to all
by Nathan Ward 26 Jan '09

26 Jan '09

Hi all, Wednesday night we are running a "vendor reception", similar to the "gear and beer" evenings at NANOG. Renaissance have generously made a prize available for the evening - an iPod Nano. This will be an open bar, with finger food. Network operators and related parties can attend - even people who are not attending the main conference. Please bring some business cards - one for to go in the prize jar, and one to put in your name tag holder if you are not a conference attendee. Please RSVP to info(a)nznog.org and let us know if you are attending, and also anyone you are bringing with you so we can put you on some kind of list. It would be great to see you here, to get a taste of the NZNOG conference, and a drink or two[1]. -- Nathan Ward [1] or three.

2 2

Juniper J2320, rate limit based on bgp community (national/international)
by Barry Murphy 26 Jan '09

26 Jan '09

Hey Guys, Hope this fits in with the AUP, however I'd hope so as not many forums show how to rate-limit based on national/international traffic as they don't bill accordingly, however in NZ this is standard practice so hoping someone with juniper knowledge can assist me here. Basically I want to allow all traffic to/from national without rate-limit, then restrict international, for eg 128k. icepick(a)NCCORE01# show firewall policer 128k { if-exceeding { bandwidth-limit 128k; burst-size-limit 4500; } then discard; } filter 128k { term 1 { from { forwarding-class assured-forwarding; } then accept; } term 2 { from { forwarding-class best-effort; } then { policer 128k; accept; } } } icepick(a)NCCORE01# show policy-options policy-statement Orcon-Primary-In term 1 { from community [ Orcon-Local Orcon-National Orcon-Peering Orcon-Telstra Orcon-Telecom ]; then { local-preference 110; forwarding-class assured-forwarding; accept; } } term 2 { from { route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 upto /24; } then { local-preference 110; forwarding-class best-effort; accept; } } term 3 { from { route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 exact; } then { local-preference 120; accept; } } term 4 { then reject; } icepick(a)NCCORE01# show interfaces ge-0/0/1 unit 55 description "Test interface"; vlan-id 55; family inet { filter { input 128k; output 128k; } address 113.21.x.x/29; } The problem I'm running into is all traffic is being rate-limited at 128k, rather than just the international. I was able to find one example located at http://archives.devshed.com/forums/networking-100/policer-based-on-communit… however this describes the use of destination-class where I only have forwarding-class so I'm not sure if this has been depreciated or renamed or not supported by J2320. I understand this may be a question for JTAC, however I'd like to hear from users here in NZ that have managed to get this going with junos. To keep the list sane, please reply offlist, if many people are interested I'll post the working solution after being tested for archive purposes. Public holiday for Aucklanders next monday, extra long weekend of beer, mmmmm Thanks Barry

3 3

System Administrators Miniconf draft schedule
by Ewen McNeill 25 Jan '09

25 Jan '09

The NZNOG 2009 conference starts tomorrow (Wed 2009-01-28) with the tutorial day, including the System Administrators Miniconf. As previously announced the System Administrators Miniconf is being held in more of a BoF style (shorter intro talks, more discussion) with a more flexible schedule than previous years. But for the benefit of those who are hoping to switch back and forth between tutorials, this is approximately what we intend to have in terms of ordering and timing: -=- cut here -=- Intro/Welcome Ewen McNeill: Scaling System and Network monitoring Peter Mott: VMware in a production environment Jonny Martin: PCH VMWare Platform * Morning Tea * Amos Jeffries: Squid web caching Michael Robinsion: Configuration automation (puppet, cfengine, etc) Jonny Martin: ENUM intro -=- cut here -=- About the only thing which is actually fixed is the morning tea (10:30-11:00) and the start (at approximately 09:00). I believe we have the room for at least half a day, and perhaps the full day, so we're open to adding more topics (or a general "problem solving" type BoF) after the things listed above. Ewen

1 0

One room available at the NZNOG venue this week.
by Jonny Martin 25 Jan '09

25 Jan '09

Hi All, We've had one room become available at the conference venue for this week, it's available for Tuesday through Friday nights. If you still haven't sorted your accommodation out for this week, then you may be in luck. First to reply to me gets it. Cheers, Jonny.

1 1

Xtra DNS Servers
by Jonathan Wood 25 Jan '09

25 Jan '09

Hi there all, I just got this message from our friends at telecom Dear Customer, On Saturday morning (24 January 2009) an unforeseen technical fault affected some Telecom customers. Broadband and Dial-Up internet connections were working, however you may have had problems accessing Xtra email, as well as some services on the Yahoo!Xtra website. Our technical teams worked swiftly to identify and resolve the problem, and the majority of services were restored by midday. We apologise if you were impacted or inconvenienced by the interruption. Sincerely, The Team at Telecom This email is being sent to you as it is a service related message about products and services you have with Telecom. It is not a promotional email. This email is being sent on behalf of Telecom NZ Ltd by Jericho Ltd. Telecom New Zealand. 8 Hereford Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland 1011, NZ. jonno

1 0

Re: [nznog] Use of .0 and .255 in address pools
by Scott Weeks 25 Jan '09

25 Jan '09

: Curiousity about what people are using as far as : addressing pools these days - lots of /24s (and : excluding the end addresses), or bigger blocks? : More specifically, is anyone handing out the .0 : and .255 addresses, or are there still sufficient : CPE/endpoints out there which cope poorly with : those addresses? :: I've been handing out /23s for years now and have :: had zero problems with the middle 0 and 255. ::: I guess I should qualify my statement. I have ::: been handing out /23s with no problems at all ::: on a eyeball network. Not on a content network. :::: I know Telecom were/are handout out .0 addresses :::: on their 3G connections too. It's a pain Can you elaborate on this? Are you still talking about the 'middle' .0 and .255 IPs of /23s and larger? What troubles have you seen and what kind of mobile devices are you talking about? scott ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------

1 0

Re: [nznog] Use of .0 and .255 in address pools
by Scott Weeks 24 Jan '09

24 Jan '09

------ surfer(a)mauigateway.com wrote: ------- ------ ender(a)paradise.gen.nz wrote: -------- Curiousity about what people are using as far as addressing pools these days - lots of /24s (and excluding the end addresses), or bigger blocks? More specifically, is anyone handing out the .0 and .255 addresses, or are there still sufficient CPE/endpoints out there which cope poorly with those addresses? ------------------------------------------ I've been handing out /23s for years now and have had zero problems with the middle 0 and 255. ------------------------------------------- I guess I should qualify my statement. I have been handing out /23s with no problems at all on a eyeball network. Not on a content network. scott ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

2 1

Xtra DNS Servers
by Nick Larsen (ZeroOne Operations) 23 Jan '09

23 Jan '09

Hi, Is anyone having trouble resolving domains hosted on {alien,terminator}.xtra.co.nz? Xtra's DNS servers seem to have disappeared (at least from the locations I've tried from). Kind regards, Nick Larsen Network Technician DDI +64.4.471.4447 Freephone 0800 ZEROONE Ph +64.4.499.0018 Fax +64.4.499.0019 Address Level 4, United Building. 107 Customhouse Quay, Wellington, New Zealand

6 8

Re: [nznog] [AusNOG] Cisco Pricing.. blah
by Skeeve Stevens 23 Jan '09

23 Jan '09

Thank God! -- 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 -- 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. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Storey [mailto:tom(a)snnap.net] > Sent: Saturday, 24 January 2009 12:54 PM > To: skeeve(a)skeeve.org > Cc: ausnog(a)ausnog.net; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz; Skeeve Stevens > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Cisco Pricing.. blah > > > On 24/01/2009, at 11:55 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > > > Then January 9th 09 of 18% > > > > Now it is going up another 18% on 30th January 09 > > > Not quite. > > The price rise on Jan 9 was pushed back to Feb 1, so only one 18% > increase (thankfully). > > Tom

1 0

Re: [nznog] [AusNOG] Cisco Pricing.. blah
by Tom Storey 23 Jan '09

23 Jan '09

On 24/01/2009, at 11:55 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Then January 9th 09 of 18% > > Now it is going up another 18% on 30th January 09 > Not quite. The price rise on Jan 9 was pushed back to Feb 1, so only one 18% increase (thankfully). Tom

1 0