- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Andy Linton 07 May '06

07 May '06

Joe complained that the Dancing Turtle wasn't enough justification to go to IPv6 but clearly the risk of eternal damnation should be a good reason. Devout Catholics will soon be issued with an IPv6 address at Mass on Sundays and those who don't have one that's regularly used.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ipv6-wg] The Pope gets IPv6 PA space (not PI :) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:30 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> Reply-To: jeroen(a)unfix.org Organization: Unfix To: v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org <v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org>, nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> CC: ARIN PPML <ppml(a)arin.net>, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 descr: Holy See - Vatican City State country: VA So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :) Greets, Jeroen

1 0

search engine that shows illegal downloads
by Antonio Broughton 07 May '06

07 May '06

Hi, just found this news article.. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411365/711264 what interested me most, was this "search engine" that allows the federation to see "any illegal downloading in New Zealand" 1) Is this something Telecom has come up with :) (couldn't resist it) 2) How do they determine if its illegal, or not just someones home made video of Debbie does Auckland etc 3) How would this be possible? The third question is the most serious one, just wondering how there could be a search engine that showed this information? This would have to be implemented at the backbone level? -- Antonio Broughton

5 4

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Philip D'Ath 06 May '06

06 May '06

I've tried to buy commercial IPv6 connectivity in NZ. I can't buy it, full stop. -----Original Message----- ... IPv6 has been well-and-truly implemented. It's the deployment that's missing. To replay a conversation that we had in Wellington earlier in the year: Deployment costs money; money requires budget; budget requires either revenue or cost reduction (or both). Who is willing to pay more for IPv6, given that pretty much the only extra content available for your money will be a lonely, somewhat poorly-animated Japanese turtle? (Don't all shout at once.)

2 1

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Philip D'Ath 06 May '06

06 May '06

How about every ISP in NZ. -----Original Message----- From: Lindsay Druett [mailto:lindsay(a)wired.net.nz] Sent: Sunday, 7 May 2006 8:09 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb ... Anyway, what doesn't support IPv6 now ? I'm picking that what doesn't support IPv6 now is more than likely to be either upgraded or in the bin by 2008.

1 0

Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Juha Saarinen 06 May '06

06 May '06

http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/187200459 -- Juha Saarinen www.geekzone.co.nz/juha www.computerworld.co.nz

1 0

Notification of NZRR Database changes
by NZRR Database Notifications 04 May '06

04 May '06

Dear Colleague, This is to notify you that some object(s) in NZRR database which you either maintain or are listed as to-be-notified have been added, deleted or changed. These objects are used to configure the various NZIX route servers (http://nzix.net/) so you can expect the relevant servers to be reloaded in the near future. The reloading of the servers is staggered over a period of time so that if you are peering with both servers at an exchange, you can maintain at least one BGP session at all times and consequently a full set of routes. --- PREVIOUS OBJECT: route-set: AS9560:RS-ROUTES:AS9503 descr: advertised to AS9560 by FX Networks - AS9503 members: 131.203.0.0/16^16-29, 161.29.0.0/16^16-29, 161.65.0.0/16^16-29, 202.50.208.0/20^20-29, 202.53.176.0/20^20-29, 202.174.160.0/20^20-29, 202.191.32.0/20^20-29, 202.50.200.0/21^21-29, 202.50.52.0/22^22-29, 202.50.196.0/22^22-29, 202.59.4.0/22^22-29, 202.37.86.0/23^23-29, 202.49.80.0/23^23-29, 202.124.106.0/23^23-29, 192.88.85.0/24^24-29, 192.133.31.0/24^24-29, 202.20.97.0/24^24-29, 202.27.208.0/24^24-29, 202.36.183.0/24^24-29, 202.36.226.0/24^24-29, 202.50.247.0/24^24-29, 203.97.5.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc-minor(a)fx.net.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060209 source: NZRR REPLACED BY: route-set: AS9560:RS-ROUTES:AS9503 descr: advertised to AS9560 by FX Networks - AS9503 members: 131.203.0.0/16^16-29, 161.29.0.0/16^16-29, 161.65.0.0/16^16-29, 202.50.208.0/20^20-29, 202.53.176.0/20^20-29, 202.174.160.0/20^20-29, 202.191.32.0/20^20-29, 202.50.200.0/21^21-29, 202.78.240.0/21^21-29, 202.50.52.0/22^22-29, 202.50.196.0/22^22-29, 202.59.4.0/22^22-29, 202.37.86.0/23^23-29, 202.49.80.0/23^23-29, 202.124.106.0/23^23-29, 192.88.85.0/24^24-29, 192.133.31.0/24^24-29, 202.20.97.0/24^24-29, 202.27.208.0/24^24-29, 202.36.119.0/24^24-29, 202.36.183.0/24^24-29, 202.36.226.0/24^24-29, 202.46.190.0/24^24-29, 202.50.247.0/24^24-29, 203.97.5.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc-minor(a)fx.net.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060505 source: NZRR --- PREVIOUS OBJECT: route-set: AS9439:RS-ROUTES:AS9503 descr: advertised to AS9439 by FX Networks - AS9503 members: 131.203.0.0/16^16-29, 161.29.0.0/16^16-29, 161.65.0.0/16^16-29, 202.50.208.0/20^20-29, 202.53.176.0/20^20-29, 202.174.160.0/20^20-29, 202.191.32.0/20^20-29, 202.50.200.0/21^21-29, 202.50.52.0/22^22-29, 202.50.196.0/22^22-29, 202.59.4.0/22^22-29, 202.37.86.0/23^23-29, 202.49.80.0/23^23-29, 202.124.106.0/23^23-29, 192.88.85.0/24^24-29, 192.133.31.0/24^24-29, 202.20.97.0/24^24-29, 202.27.208.0/24^24-29, 202.36.183.0/24^24-29, 202.36.226.0/24^24-29, 202.50.247.0/24^24-29, 203.97.5.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc-minor(a)fx.net.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060209 source: NZRR REPLACED BY: route-set: AS9439:RS-ROUTES:AS9503 descr: advertised to AS9439 by FX Networks - AS9503 members: 131.203.0.0/16^16-29, 161.29.0.0/16^16-29, 161.65.0.0/16^16-29, 202.50.208.0/20^20-29, 202.53.176.0/20^20-29, 202.174.160.0/20^20-29, 202.191.32.0/20^20-29, 202.50.200.0/21^21-29, 202.78.240.0/21^21-29, 202.50.52.0/22^22-29, 202.50.196.0/22^22-29, 202.59.4.0/22^22-29, 202.37.86.0/23^23-29, 202.49.80.0/23^23-29, 202.124.106.0/23^23-29, 192.88.85.0/24^24-29, 192.133.31.0/24^24-29, 202.20.97.0/24^24-29, 202.27.208.0/24^24-29, 202.36.119.0/24^24-29, 202.36.183.0/24^24-29, 202.36.226.0/24^24-29, 202.46.190.0/24^24-29, 202.50.247.0/24^24-29, 203.97.5.0/24^24-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: noc-minor(a)fx.net.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20060505 source: NZRR

1 0

Re Xtra's Usenet Cancellations...
by Mark Foster 03 May '06

03 May '06

My little impromptu polls raised ~70 responses, results as follows: http://www.blakjak.net/node/495/results What are your thoughts on Xtra's decision to cancel its Usenet service? A smart move, handled appropriately. 3% (2 votes) A smart move, but badly implemented. 4% (3 votes) An understandable move, handled appropriately. 6% (4 votes) An understandable move, badly implemented. 40% (27 votes) A bad move, but the implementation was acceptable. 1% (1 vote) A bad move, and badly implemented. 45% (30 votes) Total votes: 67 http://www.blakjak.net/node/496/results Usenet: Usage Query. I use Usenet every day. 25% (18 votes) I use Usenet every few days. 13% (9 votes) I use Usenet once a week. 6% (4 votes) I use Usenet occaisionally. 11% (8 votes) I used to use it regularly, I don't anymore. 32% (23 votes) I'm aware of what Usenet is, but have never used it. 10% (7 votes) I've never heard of Usenet. 3% (2 votes) Total votes: 71 It seems that whilst opinion is divided as to whether cancelling their usenet service was a bad move or not, there is general agreement that the way in which this was actioned was 'bad' (tm). In fact it seems that only 7 votes from 67 - or a fraction over 10% - think that it was done well. Speaks for itself, doesn't it? Also interesting to see that certainly from the NZNOG community - and a few other smallish communites I circulated the poll to - Usenet still has some use. Just under half (~45%) of respondents could say they 'don't' use Usenet, with another ~39% of respondents saying they use it at least once a week. Fairly even spread. I'm not convinced that running the same survey in a forum accessed by non-network geeks would reveal the same results, though. Regards Mark.

1 0

Govt announcements
by David Farrar 03 May '06

03 May '06

I think the operational significance of the Govt's announcements today make it on-topic. Surprise announcement a few minutes ago: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25636 Government moves fast to improve Broadband New Zealanders can look forward to faster, better broadband Internet services thanks to the comprehensive telecommunications package announced today. Communications Minister David Cunliffe says the package is a vital part of the Government's drive to transform the economy and push New Zealand's broadband performance into the top quarter of the OECD. "Access to fast, competitively priced broadband Internet is vital for New Zealand to take full advantage of new technologies," Mr Cunliffe said. "This package will help ensure we catch up and keep up with other developed countries." Today's package includes: * Requiring the unbundling of the local loop and sub-loop copper-wire lines between telephone exchanges and homes and businesses, allowing other Internet Service Providers to compete fully with Telecom to provide faster, cheaper broadband. * Regulatory action such as information disclosure, accounting separation of Telecom's business operations and an enhanced Commerce Commission monitoring role in order to ensure improved competition. * Removing constraints on the existing regulated Unbundled Bitstream Service to ensure ISPs can offer better and cheaper broadband at upload speeds faster than 128kps. * Encouraging investment in alternative infrastructure such as fibre, wireless and satellite networks by measures including a review of public sector investment in telecommunications infrastructure to encourage a whole-of-government approach; reviewing whether Telecom's ability to reduce local prices solely in response to new competing infrastructure investment should be constrained; developing a rural package and expansion of the Digital Strategy Broadband Challenge fund. "We are continuing to look at whether additional measures are warranted, such as the structural separation of Telecom's retail and lines operations," Mr Cunliffe said. -- David Farrar e-mail: david(a)farrar.com mob: 027 447 0216, ph: 04 471 0956, fax: 04 471 0946 blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz msn: dpf666(a)hotmail.com, icq: 29964527, skype: dpfdpf Director, Curia Market Research http://www.curia.co.nz Vice-President, InternetNZ http://www.internetnz.net.nz Director, .nz Registry Services, http://www.nzrs.net.nz

11 11

Xtra and usenet
by Matthew Poole 02 May '06

02 May '06

I notice that there's been a dearth of comment in here about this. Does the NZNOG community not especially care, or has this just flown below the radar? -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

8 8

Re: [nznog] Xtra and usenet
by Blair Harrison 02 May '06

02 May '06

Mark Foster wrote: > > I am interested to see whether there is an opinion that regardless of the > 'how' this was done by Xtra, that this may infact have been a 'smart' idea > (from a business POV). One assumes you take into account the business > overheads of running a usenet server in the first place, and that there is > a noticable benefit to the company by cancelling the service... I'm interested to know which ISPs actually still run a Usenet server - and if so, how much bandwidth does it use and how many users does it have? Both raw numbers and as a percentage of the userbase... I'm guessing not very many.. Given the availability of services like GigaNews, Google Groups and the large bandwidth and support demands of running a Usenet server down under, is an ISP provided Usenet Server really something that needs to exist these days? And on another topic, Bonzi Buddy seems to think it's time for a beer. http://202.174.163.104/~blair/bonzibeer.jpg -Blair

3 2