- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

new netblocks for Callplus/Slingshot
by Kevin Stewart 07 May '06

07 May '06

We are about to start advertising our new address blocks at the APE and WIX 124.197.0.0 /18 and 203.160.112.0/20 here is our current prefix list ASN 9790 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 5 permit 124.197.0.0/18 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 10 permit 202.36.232.0 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 15 permit 202.37.22.0 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 20 permit 202.49.34.0/23 le 24 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 25 permit 202.50.109.0 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 30 permit 202.180.64.0/18 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 35 permit 203.97.152.0 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 40 permit 203.100.208.0/20 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 45 permit 203.160.112.0/20 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 50 permit 203.184.0.0/18 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 55 permit 203.215.142.0 ip prefix-list callplus-networks seq 60 permit 203.215.143.0 -- Kevin Stewart Network Engineer DDI ++ 64 9 919 6120 Mobile ++ 64 21 885 505 Email kevins(a)callplus.co.nz ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately via email and then destroy this message and any attachments.

2 1

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by barry＠unix.co.nz 07 May '06

07 May '06

I'm sure majority of the devices would be added on an internal network such as telstra clears cable tv (digital) and cable modems (management), only 1 live ip is assigned for internet services. From memory a few mobile providers assign you a internal ip too and you're nat'ed out to the net. But yeah IPv6 is just around the corner. Thanks Barry > http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/187200459 > > > -- > Juha Saarinen > www.geekzone.co.nz/juha > www.computerworld.co.nz > > _______________________________________________ > NZNOG mailing list > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog >

12 23

Re: [nznog] Oh dear, no more room on the intarweb
by Philip D'Ath 07 May '06

07 May '06

It allows each machine to have a globally unique IP address, without any form NAT. NAT breaks several protocols, and generally makes life more difficult. Also, if you want to use the same port for several machines (like 443) and you only have a single IP address then it makes life more difficult. For example, we have a single IPv4 address on a DSL tail. However, our entire network is IPv6 enabled using a 6to4 tunnel. We have several of our servers providing an https service. Thanks to IPv6 I can now easily browse to any of these servers from any of the remote locations that we have already IPv6 enabled. We are looking to actively start using IPv6 at many of our clients this year. We'll be using 6to4 tunnels again (because no one sells IPv6 transit ...). This means we can load a management agent on their machines, and have our server talk to those agents over a VPN. Normally we would have the grief of ensuring their private IP address range is different from all of our other client addresses ranges. With every machine having a globally unqiue IPv6 address this is no longer an issue. Of course, there is always an IPv4 RFC1918 clash, and we end up with the option of limited management, or a renumbering exercise. The sooner everyone adopts IPv6, and we can easily get native IPv6 transit the better. -----Original Message----- Still, I'm a little puzzled why a single IPv4 address (with lots of NAT behind it) is really any different from a single IPv6 prefix with lots of bits on the right hand side.

1 0

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