--- 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&…
[View More]gt;
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
[View Less]
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.…
[View More]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
[View Less]
--- 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 …
[View More]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
[View Less]
--- 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 …
[View More]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
[View Less]
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 …
[View More]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
[View Less]
-----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 …
[View More]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
[View Less]
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 …
[View More]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
[View Less]
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 …
[View More]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/
[View Less]
> > 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 …
[View More]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
[View Less]
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/