- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Peering exchange in the Wairarapa?
by Blair Harrison 01 Mar '05

01 Mar '05

Hi Guys, I'm just wondering if there is any interest at all in having a peering exchange of some kind in the Wairarapa. I know I've been thinking about such a beast for a while, but at the moment there's only a couple of ISP-like entities (that I know of) who might possibly be interested. WISE Net would be happy to house such a beast if it could be shown that there was sufficient interest, although I'm not sure we're exactly what you might call neutral territory :) So really what I'm asking is, is there anyone else out there? Do you want to peer with us? With others? Have you got a network you want to connect to others with in the Wairarapa at a central place? Raise your hands now, or forever shall your cat5 be under-utilised :) Cheers, Blair Harrison Systems Administrator WISE Net | http://wise.net.nz

4 3

I-Root Server avaiable at the WIX
by Andy Linton 28 Feb '05

28 Feb '05

There is now an instance of an anycast I-Root name server attached to the WIX. Those peering with the WIX route servers should be seeing an announcment for 192.36.148.0/24. From Wellington I'm seeing RTTs like this: $ ping 192.36.148.17 PING 192.36.148.17 (192.36.148.17) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=252 time=3.90 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=252 time=1.12 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=3 ttl=252 time=1.73 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=4 ttl=252 time=2.07 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=5 ttl=252 time=1.18 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=6 ttl=252 time=1.62 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=7 ttl=252 time=1.80 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=8 ttl=252 time=1.92 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=9 ttl=252 time=1.43 ms --- 192.36.148.17 ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8080ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.125/1.867/3.905/0.782 ms and from a host in Auckland which doesn't see the announcement I see: $ ping 192.36.148.17 PING 192.36.148.17 (192.36.148.17): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=257.7 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=255.9 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=255.9 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=256.8 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=256.2 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=257.9 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=259.5 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=256.5 ms 64 bytes from 192.36.148.17: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=257.2 ms --- 192.36.148.17 ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 255.9/257.0/259.5 ms Thanks to InternetNZ who funded this and to Packet Clearing House and Autonomica for making it happen. Enjoy!

9 13

RE: [nznog] I-Root Server avaiable at the WIX
by Matt Mariu 28 Feb '05

28 Feb '05

I sort of came along late in the 'news' game when the Major Telco's decided to de-peer.. To that effect, Does anyone out there have a solid explanation from them as to why they chose to do what they Did ? Joe, You used to work @ Clear.. Surely you have inside knowledge :) Sorry if this is old news, if theres a link, post it please. -----Original Message----- From: Keith Davidson [mailto:keith(a)wise.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:19 To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] I-Root Server avaiable at the WIX Hmmm, so the aberrant nature of peering in NZ rears its ugly head... Seems strange that the telcos would prefer to route offshore at a financial and a performance cost, rather than peer in NZ and give their users faster speeds and cost reductions... Keith Davidson

2 1

RE: [nznog] I-Root Server avaiable at the WIX
by neil gardner 28 Feb '05

28 Feb '05

>But it still says on Paradises website: > >Citylink Traffic is calculated in the same way as JetStart Traffic, with the >exception of traffic delivered through the Wellington Internet Exchange >(WIX), which is completely free! And there's nothing inaccurate about that is there? They just don't send any more traffic over WIX - but if they did - it would be free. :-) Anyway, good to see they aren't letting elegant solutions get in the way of MORE MONEY!!! Cheers - N. NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender has the authority to issue and specifically states them to be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.

1 0

IPv6 national peering
by Leigh Smith 27 Feb '05

27 Feb '05

Hi all Just to let the people that are interested in IPv6 WorldxChange are now peered at the APE a second peer point will be available soon 2001:7fa:4:c0cb::9a03 AS 17435 Regards Leigh

1 0

IPV6, Cisco
by Philip D'Ath 26 Feb '05

26 Feb '05

After much torment this weekend I have managed to get IPv6 running nicely on a low end Cisco DSL router (Cisco 837). If anyone wants an IPv6 connection at home (and a /48 block of real world IPv6 address space) to experiment with, say yourself some grief and start with this. http://www.ifm.net.nz/cookbooks/ipv6configwizard.html Now if we can just get a critical mass of users we might be able to tempt an ISP to offer native connections ... and actually use Joe's IPv6 F root server.

1 0

RE: [nznog] IPv6, NAT-PT
by Philip D'Ath 26 Feb '05

26 Feb '05

I'm talking about using NAT-PT to allow a native ipv6 network to talk to an ipv4 network. Without some kind of protocol translation (aka PT) ipv6 can't talk to ipv4. The reason this has to be done is because you can't buy an ipv6 connection to an ISP in NZ yet. -----Original Message----- From: Cameron Kerr [mailto:cameron(a)humbledown.org] Sent: Saturday, 26 February 2005 2:27 p.m. To: Philip D'Ath Cc: nznog Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv6, NAT-PT On 26/02/2005, at 1:25 PM, Philip D'Ath wrote: > I'm trying to get NAT-PT support working on a Cisco DSL router to > support native ipv6 clients behind it. I've done a lot of searching, > and can't find the answers to what I'm doing wrong. I have two > problems. Why are you using NAT with IPv6? There is very little reason pros for using IPv6 with NAT, and many cons. Afterall, NAT is just a hack for IPv4 to prevent address exhaustion. IIRC, ISPs are not to give out single IP addresses, but rather /64 allocations. Anyone care to correct me on this? -- Cameron Kerr Telecommunications Teaching Fellow & SysAdmin ckerr(a)cs.otago.ac.nz

7 15

Paradise bouncing emails?
by PhoneNet 25 Feb '05

25 Feb '05

Anyone else getting complaints from customers re email destined for Paradise accounts being bounced? Ian

3 2

RE: [nznog] IPv6, NAT-PT
by Philip D'Ath 25 Feb '05

25 Feb '05

I'm not wishing to get access to ipv6 content at this stage (but will of course eventually want to do this). I'm wanting to start using ipv6 internally. Once we are using it, I'll probably start some of our clients using it later this year. Once enough people are using it hopefully some ISP will start offering native ipv6 connections, because they will have a business case to do so. Hence, the desire to use NAT-PT, otherwise I'll be stuck running dual stacks. -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley(a)isc.org] Sent: Saturday, 26 February 2005 4:57 p.m. To: Philip D'Ath Cc: nznog; Cameron Kerr Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv6, NAT-PT On 25 Feb 2005, at 20:39, Philip D'Ath wrote: > I'm talking about using NAT-PT to allow a native ipv6 network to talk > to an ipv4 network. Without some kind of protocol translation (aka > PT) > ipv6 can't talk to ipv4. The reason this has to be done is because > you can't buy an ipv6 connection to an ISP in NZ yet. Most people running v6 are only using their v6 access to reach content served over v6. Most of the mechanisms suggested to allow a v6-only host to access v4 content remain undeployed. If you want to reach v6 content, the easiest thing to do is find an ISP who can give you v6 transit. In the absense of local carriers with dual-stack edge routers (i.e. in the case of most of the planet) the way you do this is terminate a tunnel somewhere. Joe

1 0

IPv6, NAT-PT
by Philip D'Ath 25 Feb '05

25 Feb '05

I'm trying to get NAT-PT support working on a Cisco DSL router to support native ipv6 clients behind it. I've done a lot of searching, and can't find the answers to what I'm doing wrong. I have two problems. First, I can't get them to grab additional parameters from DHCP. I'm using: ipv6 dhcp pool dhcppool dns-server ::210.55.12.1 - I know the above is not likely to answer AAAA requests, but I plan to use DNS-ALG domain-name local.arpa Interface Ethernet0 ipv6 enable ipv6 nd other-config-flag ipv6 dhcp server dhcppool The second problem is I can't NAT-PT to work at all. It doesn't even attempt to do translations. Snippits I'm using are: Interface Dialer0 description ipv4 Interface connecting to Internet ipv6 nat Interface Ethernet0 description ipv6 Interface connection to local lan (aka LINK-LOCAL) ipv6 address 3FFE:AAAA:BBBB:1::9/64 - An address copied from an example, hope to use LINK-LOCAL addresses later ipv6 enable ipv6 nat ipv6 nat translation udp-timeout 600 ipv6 nat v6v4 source list pt-list1 interface Dialer0 overload ipv6 nat prefix 3FFE:B00:1::/96 ipv6 access-list pt-list1 permit ipv6 3FFE:AAAA:BBBB:1::/64 any

3 2