- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

FW:Electricity Reforms Act and Diesel Generators
by Jeremy Simons 03 Dec '06

03 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 30 Nov '06

30 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