- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

InternetNZ Governance Positions
by Keith Davidson 21 May '05

21 May '05

Pardon the slightly off topic intrusion all, InternetNZ is seeking applications from suitably qualified people for governance positions within the organisation. 3 members of the .nz Oversight Committee, and 2 directors of NZRS retire by rotation on 30 June 2005. All are eligible to re-stand for the positions. Full copies of the print advertisements and position descriptions can be found at www.internetnz.net.nz/vacancy/ Applications close Friday 3 June. There is no automatic entitlement to free beer (had to mention at least one word to avoid being completely off topic), but directors fees and honoraria are paid. Keith Davidson President - InternetNZ

1 0

FYI - Transfer of management
by Elly Tawhai 20 May '05

20 May '05

Hi, Following discussions between APNIC and NZTelecom, the following address ranges will be transfered from NZTelecom to APNIC's management from 1 July 2005: 202.27/16 202.37/16 202.36/16 202.49/16 202.50/16 As a result, a number of changes will come into effect for address space within these ranges. 1. Status To ensure that the management of this address space is consistent with other "swamp space" previously dealt with, the following business rule has been applied: Any range greater than /23 will be registered with the status "Allocated Portable" Any range of /23 or less will registered with the status "Assigned Portable" * Note, ranges with the status "Allocated Portable" are able to be sub-delegated to customers. 2. Mnt-by All maintainers referenced within the mnt-by attribute will be changed to APNIC-HM, as APNIC now protects all registrations of historical resources. For more information on this policy, please see section 4 of "Historical resource policies" at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/historical-resource-policies.html#4 To ensure the integrity of information in the APNIC Whois Database, APNIC will not update historical information in the APNIC Whois Database until the resource holder: - establishes the organisation's right to the resources, and - enters a formal agreement with APNIC (either as a member or non-member account holder. If necessary, you can create a non-member account to manage your historical resources at: http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/docs/historical-maintain-form Please note that APNIC non-members are subject to a US$100 annual account fee to cover APNIC's administrative costs. 3. Domain objects Domain objects of /24 have been created within APNIC whois database based on the zone data, which has been transfered. Please note, none of these changes will be made until 1 July 2005. If you have any further queries about how to make updates please do not hesitate to contact APNIC at <helpdesk(a)apnic.net>. Regards, APNIC Secretariat

3 2

Fw: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack
by Dream Net Internet 19 May '05

19 May '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dream Net Internet" <sales(a)dreamnet.co.nz> To: "Barry Murphy" <barry(a)unix.co.nz> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack > for sure this problem should be solved so it is not possible or at least > not so damn easy. > > Anyone from Telecom got any comments? would be interested to know what is > going to be done about this. > > Regards > Adam Fenech > www.dreamnet.co.nz > 0800 484 393 > > WARNING This email contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and may be > subject to LEGAL PRIVILEGE. If you are not the intended recipient you must > not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this email or > attachments. If you have received this in error please notify us > immediately by return email, 0800484393 and delete this email. Thank you. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barry Murphy" <barry(a)unix.co.nz> > To: "Dream Net Internet" <sales(a)dreamnet.co.nz> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:16 AM > Subject: Re: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack > > >> The theory was already out there, I was just backing up that it does >> work, >> doesnt work on my 021 however. Proof of concept. >> >> This is a bug that should be rectified. >> >> Barry >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dream Net Internet" <sales(a)dreamnet.co.nz> >> To: "Barry Murphy" <barry(a)unix.co.nz>; "Simon Allard" >> <simon.allard(a)staff.ihug.co.nz>; <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> >> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:48 AM >> Subject: Re: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack >> >> >>> thats not the greatest thing to post to a whole list :( >>> >>> Regards >>> Adam Fenech >>> www.dreamnet.co.nz >>> 0800 484 393 >>> >>> WARNING This email contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and may be >>> subject to LEGAL PRIVILEGE. If you are not the intended recipient you >>> must >>> not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this email or >> attachments. >>> If you have received this in error please notify us immediately by >>> return >>> email, 0800484393 and delete this email. Thank you. >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Barry Murphy" <barry(a)unix.co.nz> >>> To: "Simon Allard" <simon.allard(a)staff.ihug.co.nz>; >>> <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> >>> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:38 AM >>> Subject: Re: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack >>> >>> >>> > It's quite simple, I stumbled onto it a few months back. >>> > >>> > I use voipjet voip provider which lets u set you callerid, I set it to >>> > 6427304xxxx ( my mobile number ) and tried to call myself to see what >>> > it >>> > would show as my callerid, however my phone didn't ring, it went into >>> > my >>> > voice mail. >>> > >>> > Since that day i've had a pin request when dialing into my voice mail. >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > Barry >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Simon Allard" <simon.allard(a)staff.ihug.co.nz> >>> > To: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> >>> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:30 AM >>> > Subject: RE: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> He was on 20/20 last night saying "I wasn't the person involved, but >>> >> I >>> > know >>> >> how it was done". >>> >> >>> >> >From what I could tell he had setup some type of Soft PABX (Probably >>> >> Asterisk), and was writing his own caller-id and putting them out >>> >> some >>> > sort >>> >> of ISDN/E1 connection. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > -----Original Message----- >>> >> > From: Dream Net Internet [mailto:sales(a)dreamnet.co.nz] >>> >> > Sent: Friday, 20 May 2005 10:17 a.m. >>> >> > To: Kevin Stewart; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >>> >> > Subject: Re: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack >>> >> > >>> >> > Suhil again! wondered when we would hear about him again lol >>> >> > Regards >>> >> > Adam Fenech >>> >> > www.dreamnet.co.nz >>> >> > 0800 484 393 >>> >> > >>> >> > WARNING This email contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and >>> >> > may >>> >> > be >>> >> > subject to LEGAL PRIVILEGE. If you are not the intended recipient >>> >> > you >>> > must >>> >> > not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this email or >>> >> > attachments. >>> >> > If you have received this in error please notify us immediately by >>> > return >>> >> > email, 0800484393 and delete this email. Thank you. >>> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> > From: "Kevin Stewart" <kevins(a)callplus.co.nz> >>> >> > To: <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> >>> >> > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:02 AM >>> >> > Subject: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > > 19 year old Hamilton man named..... >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> > >> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/489D061905E8E697CC257005000CDA17? >>> >> > OpenDocument&pub=Computerworld >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > -- >>> >> > > Kevin Stewart >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Network Engineer >>> >> > > DDI ++ 64 9 919 6120 >>> >> > > Mobile ++ 64 21 885 505 >>> >> > > Email kevins(a)callplus.co.nz >>> >> > > >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > > 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 >>> >> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > NZNOG mailing list >>> > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >>> > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> >

2 1

Peering BOF IX Meeting Minutes (fwd)
by Simon Lyall 19 May '05

19 May '05

To put something vaguely closer to on topic before Andy goes postal. Heres Bill Norton's ( you may remember him from previous network conferences) little summary of the Peering BOF at this week's nanog. The most interesting bit is the "Transit Survey" of prices for Tier1 interconnect. This is roughly how much it'll cost you if you move your site to the US and send your content to TelstraClear via a large US provider. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William B. Norton <bill.norton(a)gmail.com> Subject: Peering BOF IX Meeting Minutes Peering BOF IX Meeting Minutes Seattle, WA May 16, 2005 7:30-9:00PM ...Transcribing my notes here for those who couldn't make the Peering BOF... comments/corrections to wbn(a)equinix.com or wbn(a)umich.edu A 5 Minute Plea for Multicast Peering ------------------------------------------------- Celeste Anderson (ISI/Los Nettos) spoke about the need for greater peering of native multicast routing. The audience commented that the volume of multicast traffic was still relatively small (a few T1's worth) in comparison to unicast traffic, and that there is still not significant customer demand to do so. We discussed the chicken and egg problems for a bit. Transit Survey ------------------------ A few people in the community suggested it would be good to get a sense of transit prices, to see if they were continuing to fall, remaining constant, or were rising back up. In previous white papers I had polled the Peering Coordinator Community to get a sense of transit prices for comparison against peering costs, so with this previous data and an audience survey we to take a stab. I asserted that with transit you often get what you pay for, and we were not interested in identifying the "lowest price", the "bottom feeder" price points that have no customer service, and that there is in fact a qualitative difference between transit services. I was looking for approximations of "Tier 1 ISP" pricing ? as expected, there was some debate here. To avoid the rathole of "Tier 1" etc. and to focus on "quality" of transit services for a quick price measure I pulled together some questions to disqualify some upstream providers from the survey: Q1: When you complain about packet loss to your Upstream, you are told A) I have Bob working on it, he will call you back in 15 minutes B) Call this other number (which rings busy) C) ?Let me put you on hold for an hour(Barry Manilow sings the songs that make the whole world sing) D) You should have sent your packets earlier I told folks if they answered "C" or "D" to please not answer the poll ? we were not interested in bottom feeder pricing for this poll. Q2: My Upstream Provider's Reliability is A) 6 9's B) Close to 6 9's C) Closer to 9 6's D) Don't know ? I'll let you know when they stay up long enough to measure. I told folks if they answered "C" or "D" to please not answer the poll? we were not interested in bottom feeder pricing for this poll. Q3: My Upstream Provider's Customer Service Makes Me Feel? A) Like a VIP B) Like a Nuisance C) Very, very unclean. D) Like I was just traded to another inmate for 2 packs of menthol cigarettes. I told folks if they answered "C" or "D" to please not answer the poll? we were not interested in bottom feeder pricing for this poll. Source: A couple of these questions/answers came from a Wired magazine article I read on the flight up, which referenced http://www.5ives.com. While not a particularly scientific survey, we did get 28 viable data points with the averages being: 10Mbps commit: $41.75/Mbps 100Mbps commit: $33.83/Mbps 1000Mbps commit: $20.73/Mbps 10000Mbps commit: $13.80/Mbps About 6 months or so ago I did a similar poll with the Peering Coordinator Community and the #s were around $85, $60, $45, $30, indicating that perhaps the transit prices have indeed fallen. If any of you are interested in the raw data (thanks to Eric Troyer for putting the data points into a spreadsheet) let me know and I'll email you the spreadsheet. Peering at 10G ? introduction to The Great (Public vs. Private) Peering Debate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The motivation for the Great Debate was a white paper I am working on called "The Great (Public vs. Private) Peering Debate: Peering at 10G" in which I documented the Peering Coordinator Community assertion and the math that the next best alternative to 10G Public Peering was many 1G Private Peering sessions. I walked through the models for both cases (10G Public and 1G Private) peering, specifying sample equipment (thanks ras!), cost estimates, etc. so we could compare the two alternatives side-by-side. There were many valid points raised during this discussion including: 1) In the modeling we were not including backbone costs, only IX and Peering equipment fees at one location, 2) There are other valid configurations of equipment, including removing the peering router and using switches by themselves (debate here as well), 3) There were a wide variety of redundancy configurations that could/should be considered as well in both cases. The nice thing about modeling this stuff is the ability to identify and discuss assumptions, to change #'s, to have something on the table to discuss, and it was a lively discussion before and after the BOF. The punch line for the current model I shared was that public peering at 10G and private peering at 1G both are very cost effective solutions, yielding less than $10/Mbps with a few gigabits of peering. Also, the more traffic peered, the more the cost of these two models of peering converged ? so Public vs. Private becomes an architectural / religious issue. This leads to the Great Debate ? when do people prefer Public Peering and when do they prefer Private Peering, and why? The Great (Public vs. Private) Peering Debate ------------------------------------------------------------------- I recruited Maurice Dean (who was the Peering Coordinator at Global Crossing and now at Google) to present and defend "The Strongest Arguments for Public Peering", and Peter Cohen (Peering Coordinator for Telia) to share "The Strongest Arguments for Private Peering". We used a modified Oxford Style Debate, providing each side three minutes for opening remarks, three minutes each to attack the other side's points and defend their own, a few minutes for the audience to ask clarification questions, and finally two minutes for the debaters to present summary remarks. The audience would then vote for "Who made the more compelling case." Maurice started out by pointing out that IXes today are not the IXEs of 1995, but rather are large and reliable infrastructure that provide access to a rich population of potential peers. Public peering provides instantaneous access to peers, provides aggregation benefits, ease of administration and is easy to scale peering capacity. He pointed also to the marketing benefits of public peering at the IXes. Peter opened by stating that Private Peering provided superior control over peering infrastructure. He went on that Private Peering scaled very well, that the same fiber pairs could be reused as both sides simply upgraded cards. Private Peering is simpler according to Peter since no NetFlow was needed, that there were not 20 peers all peering across the same 10G interface. For some he claimed ISPs, the only way to measure public peering traffic volume to a peer was to turn down a peering session and see the difference in traffic load. Maurice countered reinforcing that modern IXes have overcome the head of line blocking issues of the past and indeed scale very well, and in fact scale well even across a metro area. He defended the NetFlow attack by mentioning that some IXes have sFlow, providing public peering visibility on a per-peer traffic volume basis. Peter countered that Maurice was a "Stooly for the IXes", and depending on a single port for peering is asking for trouble. Further, participation in some IXes requires going to member meetings, and who has time for that. Finally that the added complexity of adding a public peering switch was problematic ? he used the analogy of air travel. "How many of you prefer a direct flight over one with connections?" The audience asked a variety of questions next but I did not jot them all down. A few points did come up though ? that circuit upgrades for private peering can take 6 months or more depending on which side is in a hurry to upgrade. Another point was that public peering was seen by some as easier to justify to their company since it would be used across many peers. The closing remarks were a rehash of the points above, but Maurice introduced a couple additional points ? that 90 day trials could be effectively done over a public peering fabric without additional costs to those attached, and that public peering fabrics enabled more opportunities (for peering? For add'l services? For transit sales?...not sure what he meant here). Peter reasserted that placing all the eggs in one public peering port was just asking for trouble. The audience next voted "Who presented the more compelling case?" We had to count twice because it was so close. The final results: Public Peering presented the more compelling case: 37 Private Peering presented the more compelling case: 33 Maurice Dean won the Great Peering Debate. White Paper Available -------------------------------- I captured these and other arguments for and against private peering in the white paper mentioned above ? I would love to have a few more reviewers give me some feedback/edits/etc. If you are interested in 10 Gigabit Ethernet Peering or the debate discussion, send me an email (wbn(a)equinix.com) with the Subject: "The Great (Public vs. Private) Peering Debate ? Peering at 10G" and I'll send you a copy. If you provide comments on the draft I will add you to the acknowledgements section of the next version of the document. We were running out of time so we moved quickly to Peering Personals, giving Peering Coordinators a chance to introduce themselves to the group. Peering Personals ? (jotted down everything on the sheets) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Korea Telecom ? 4766 ? Bong-Hwa Song ? 40 Gbps Capacity, peering in Seattle PAIX, Palo Alto PAIX, EQLA, LINX, AMSIX, songbh(a)kt.co.kr AARNET ? 7575 ? Mark Prior ? Research Net, Seattle SIX, PAIX, LAIIX, LAAP, FixW, P|Wave, mark.prior(a)aarnet.edu.au Netflix ? Vish Y ? vish(a)netflix.com ? Selective peer Steve Gibbard ? PCH ? 42, 3856 ? Data Collection ? Open Peering 0 25 locations all over the world (SIX, EQLA, LAIIX, NYIIX, PAIXNY, EQASH,NOTA,?) Steve Gibbard ? Hurricane Electric ? 6939 ? scg(a)stevegibbard.com, peering(a)he.net ? 2700 routes, public but migrating to private at EQSJO, EQLA, EQCHI, EQDAL, EQASH, PAIXPA,NYIIX, LINX, AMSIX Brokaw Price ? Yahoo! ? 10310 ? OPEN ? peering(a)yahoo-inc.com Todd Underwood ? 64597 ? todd(a)renesys.com ? NOTA, LINX, Goofy peering, route collection only, store updates, Google ? Maurice Dean ? 15169 ? selective peering ? peering(a)google.com, NYIIX, EQ-CHI, EQCHI, EQASH, NOTA, PAIXPA,PAIXVA,1118th, TelX (60 Hudson)., LINX< AMSIX, LAIIX Akamai ? 12222 ? Patrick Gilmore ? 20940 outside U.S., OPEN and at every IX, content heavy, peering(a)akamai.com ESNET ? 293 ? Yvonne ? ipv4, ipv6, multicast, EQASH, EQSJO, MAEEast MAEWest, PAIX, AADS, FixW, Pacific NW Gigapop, peering(a)es.net, selective peering policy with AUP Celeste Anderson ? AS4, AS27, AS2152/2153, ISI/Los Nettos, research net, lots of eyeballs, LAIIX, LAAP, Pacific Wave, PAIX LA, Mostly OPEN~selective, eyeballs, peering(a)pacificwave.net, celestea(a)usc.edu, Matt Peterson ? SixApart , AS# pending, SIX, EQSJO, LiveJournal.com, matt(a)sixapart.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hope this help! -- //------------------------------------------------ // William B. Norton <wbn(a)equinix.com> // Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix, Inc. // GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635 // Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton

1 0

Police arrest two over 027 hack
by Kevin Stewart 19 May '05

19 May '05

19 year old Hamilton man named..... http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/489D061905E8E697CC257005000CDA17?O… -- Kevin Stewart Network Engineer DDI ++ 64 9 919 6120 Mobile ++ 64 21 885 505 Email kevins(a)callplus.co.nz

4 4

Re: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack
by Liz Q 19 May '05

19 May '05

On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:30, Simon Allard wrote: > He was on 20/20 last night saying "I wasn't the person involved, but I know > how it was done". Apparently it was him and his old friend ^God (will) Liz -- Everything goes wrong all at once.

1 0

RE: [nznog] Police arrest two over 027 hack
by Donald Neal 19 May '05

19 May '05

> > He was on 20/20 last night saying "I wasn't the person > involved, but I know > how it was done". > > >From what I could tell he had setup some type of Soft PABX (Probably > Asterisk), and was writing his own caller-id and putting them > out some sort > of ISDN/E1 connection. > For a number of reasons this would be a good place for this thread to end. - Donald Neal Donald Neal |"Sub judice - The Israeli Support Engineer |underground system" NGN Operations | Integration & Services Division +----------------------------------- Alcatel NZ Ltd - Telecom's network operations manager "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002."

1 0

RE: [nznog] Automatic NZNOG On-topic Converter
by Tim John 19 May '05

19 May '05

_WAY_ to much time on your hands :) ... But then of course, you did mention beer ! Tim -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [mailto:asjl(a)citylink.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2005 5:51 p.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: [nznog] Automatic NZNOG On-topic Converter Hi there, Do you guys know about any server or add-on to MS Exchange that automatically converts off-topic requests into mail about Network Operations or if that's too hard, discussions about beer? andy _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

Automatic PDF Converter
by Yehudi Binder 18 May '05

18 May '05

Hi there, Do you guys know about any server or add-on to MS Exchange that automatically converts e-mail attachments - doc, xls, etc. - to pdf before posting the e-mail? Thanks, Yehudi H. Binder IT Security Analyst Electronic Transaction Services Ltd This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential, and may be privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient do not copy, disclose, or use the contents in any way and please notify us by return e-mail immediately, then destroy the message. ETSL is not responsible for any changes made to this message and/or any attachments after sending by ETSL.

4 3

Notification of NZRR Database changes
by NZRR Database Notifications 17 May '05

17 May '05

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. --- OBJECT BELOW CREATED: aut-num: AS17492 as-name: NZRR-AS17492 descr: Vector Communications descr: APE peering at '192.203.154.19' descr: see Citylink RT job #2404 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR import: from AS9560 accept ANY AND NOT fltr-bogons export: to AS9560 announce AS17492 notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: matthew.oram(a)vectornetworks.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20050518 source: NZRR --- OBJECT BELOW CREATED: route-set: AS9560:RS-ROUTES:AS17492 descr: Route set advertised to AS9560 by Vector Communications - AS17492 members: 202.126.192.0/20^20-29 admin-c: RPA1-NZRR tech-c: RPA1-NZRR notify: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net notify: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz notify: matthew.oram(a)vectornetworks.co.nz mnt-by: MAINT-NZRR-NZ changed: rpsl-admin(a)nzix.net 20050518 source: NZRR

1 0