- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

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 28 Nov '06

28 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 27 Nov '06

27 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