About a month ago Sid Jones and I had a conversation about one of his
customers who has a /23 in this space. We raised the issue with APNIC and I
attach the thread.
There's a clear implication in the mail below that APNIC expect Telecom NZ to
cooperate on this issue which seems to be at odds with their behaviour over
202.49.252.0 - 202.49.255.255 as David Robb has noted.
I suggest a number of things here:
1) each ISP who routes portions of this block should encourage their customers
to write to APNIC requesting that as this block was allocated via the
University of Waikato which was operating as a proto NZNIC at the time then
this address space should be deemed to be provider independent space which
should be administered as other 'swamp' space.
For example, here's a record that's recently been obscured as part of this
exercise:
inetnum: 202.36.137.0 - 202.36.137.255
> netname: NZMFE
> descr: Ministry for the Environment
> descr: P.O. Box 10-362
> descr: The Terrace
> descr: Wellington
> country: NZ
> admin-c: MB22-AP
> tech-c: MB22-AP
> notify: dbmon(a)apnic.net
> mnt-by: APNIC-HM
> changed: hostmaster(a)apnic.net 19931217
> status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
> changed: hm-changed(a)apnic.net 20031020
> source: APNIC
This is clearly PORTABLE space and makes no reference to Telecom NZ and the
admin-c and tech-c details were updated just over a year ago. Note that this
address was allocated in 1993 long before Netway (a Telecom NZ subsidiary)
entered the picture at all.
Why are APNIC changing the goal posts?
2) the customers should also write to Telecom NZ making clear that their
portion of address space was not issued to Telecom NZ but to them by the
University of Waikato (acting as a proto NZNIC) and that they want Telecom to
relinquish control of this space back to APNIC.
3) I'd encourage APNIC to look again at this.
4) user groups such as InternetNZ, TUANZ etc need to get across this issue and
raise it with Telecom NZ
5) I'd suggest the press get their teeth into this but that's probably not
necessary as there's no story here. (:-)
andy
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [APNIC #624302] 202.27.0.0/16 and
http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/privacy-faq.html (fwd)] (fwd)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:20:59 +1000 (EST)
From: John Tran <john(a)apnic.net>
To: asjl(a)citylink.co.nz
CC: Anne Lord <anne(a)apnic.net>, Elly Tawhai <elly(a)apnic.net>, Tim Jones
<tim(a)apnic.net>
Hi Andy,
We have searched all our historical emails and records regarding NZNIC
as well as all information relating to 202.27.0.0/16. Here is the
summary of what we found.
Before 1995, the following address ranges had been allocated by APNIC
to the University of Waikato, which operated as a gateway for New
Zealand, under the name NZGATE:
202.27/16
202.37/16
202.36/16
202.49/16
202.50/16
These ranges were allocated on the basis that NZGATE would make
further
allocations to their customers.
In 1995, Netway Commnication Ltd took over the international gateway
function from the University of Waikato and the IP addresses were
transfered with APNIC's approval. Netway continued contracting
University of Waikato staff to allocate IP addresses on Netway's
behalf to its customers.
NZNIC was then established by the University of Waikato to obtain
provider independent addresses for other organisations like Clear
Communication and Netlink. Netway was then transfered to NZtelecom in
late 1997, along with the corresponding address space.
In November 1998, because of the confusion in the Internet community
in New Zealand about whether the address space that they obtained from
the University of Waikato was portable or not, APNIC and Brett Telfer
(Netgate) re-confirmed that the above ranges would be best managed by
NZTelecom. Since then, these address ranges are used by APNIC to
determine the membership tier paid by NZtelecom as outlined
in:
http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html
NZTelcom is able to assist any organisation holding address space with
reverse DNS and is able to change the status of DB object to public,
if so requested.
I hope the above information is useful for you. If you need additional
information please contact us. If you would prefer to discuss this
further, we can arrange a telephone conference.
Regards
Son
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:39:44 +1000 (EST)
From: Anne Lord <anne(a)apnic.net>
To: Andy Linton <asjl(a)citylink.co.nz>
Cc: son(a)apnic.net
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [APNIC #624302] 202.27.0.0/16 and
http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/privacy-faq.html (fwd)]
hi Andy,
Thanks for your email. I'm no longer involved in handling resource
requests, but I have copied Son Tran, the manager of the Member Services
department, on this email, who is and who will be able to help you.
It certainly looks like this warrants a much closer examination of the
records and history and I am sure Son would be happy to talk to you.
Best wishes,
Anne
cc: Son
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Andy Linton wrote:
> Anne,
>
> I've had a conversation today with Sid Jones about this mail. These blocks
> were allocated to the University of Waikato which operated as the proto NZNIC
> in the early nineties prior to APNIC handling this work.
>
> Aaron Scott who is listed in the changed record below went to work for Telecom
> NZ when they took over handling the exchange point at Waikato. There are a
> significant number of NZ government departments and other "blue chip"
> identities listed in the records who don't use Telecom NZ as their ISP and who
> believe that they have portable space. Some of them have /21 allocations and
> perhaps even /20 allocations.
>
> This whole set of blocks really should be considered as swamp space.
>
> I will be raising this issue on the NZNOG mailing list suggesting that those
> entities who have had these blocks allocated to then for periods in the order
> of 10 years or more should contact you asking for clarification of their position.
>
> I think it would be good if APNIC took a good look at the allocations within
> these ranges and considered what's going on here.
>
> Happy to discuss - +64 4 910 5654
>
> andy
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:44:30 +1000
> From: gpan via RT <helpdesk(a)apnic.net>
> To: sid(a)tsnz.net
> Subject: [APNIC #624302] 202.27.0.0/16 and
> http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/privacy-faq.html
>
>
> Dear Sid,
>
> Thank you for your enquiry. It was proposed at the APNIC 16
> meeting in 2003 that customer assignments (and sub-allocation
> records) need no longer be publicly accessible via normal
> 'whois' queries to the APNIC Whois Database.
>
> Customer registration records must still be registered within
> the APNIC Whois Database, in order to document address
> utilisation, however a new 'public' database attribute has been
> created to allow these records to be excluded from public whois
> query results. This is why you are unable to receive any
> result when querying the APNIC Whois Database about this
> particular /23. You will get the result as:
>
> inetnum: 202.27.0.0 - 202.27.255.255
> netname: NZGATE-NZ
> descr: NZ Gate National Service Provider
> descr: Component of University Of Waikato
> descr: New Zeland
> country: NZ
> admin-c: DBK1-AP
> tech-c: KS61-AP
> remarks: service provider
> notify: dbmon(a)apnic.net
> mnt-by: APNIC-HM
> mnt-lower: NZTELECOM
> changed: ARRON(a)WAIKATO.AC.NZ 19950612
> changed: hostmaster(a)apnic.net 20020208
> changed: hm-change(a)apnic.net 20020621
> status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
> source: APNIC
>
> Information contained within the historical records outlines that
> NZTelecom has full authority over the following blocks:
>
> 202.27.0.0/16
> 202.36.0.0/16
> 202.37.0.0/16
> 202.49.0.0/16
> 202.50.0.0/16
> 203.96.0.0/17
>
> Information from those records also outline that the assignments from
> these ranges are non portable.
>
> 202.27.xx.0/23
>
> This address space is from a block allocated, by APNIC to NZTelecom.
> This means that all assignments made from this block are non portable.
>
> If your customer would like to see or change their records in APNIC
> whois database, please advise them to contact NZ Telecom.
>
> Best Regards,
> Guangliang
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Guangliang Pan, Internet Resource Analyst <gpan(a)apnic.net>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100
> http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199
> Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188
> email: helpdesk(a)apnic.net
>
> Please send Internet Resource Requests to <hostmaster(a)apnic.net>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
>
> [sid(a)tsnz.net - Wed Oct 20 12:27:02 2004]:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm writing to you on behalf of one of my customers XXXXXXX > > as we have something of a dilemma.
> >
> > I believe the XXXXXX applied for some PI address space from the
> > university of waikato sometime in the mid-1990s and were allocated
> > 203.27.xx.0/23.
> >
> > I also believe this space was "swamp" space and not allocated to any
> > of the various service providers in New Zealand.
> >
> >
> > They have had this space routed to them via effectively the same
> > provider since then. The provider for the past 3 years has been
> > TelstraClear NZ Ltd, prior to that it was Telstra NZ Ltd and
> > previously Netlink
> >
> > Can you please clarify who the /23 is allocated to.
> >
> > Can you please clarify if the customer can still use this space while
> > connected to the provider they have had for the past decade.
> >
> > Further if this is the case how do we get the current records updated
> > to reflect this sub-delegation. I'm also curious as to what effect
> if
> > any this has on other customers I have in 202.27/16
> >
>
>
>
Hi all,
As Richard announced late last week, Philip Hazel, the lead author of
Exim, is attending NZNOG to give a full day workshop on the configuration
and administration of Exim servers.
A few people have indicated that the Exim 4 book
(http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book/) is hard to get hold of in NZ and Philip
recommends it in addition to the Exim tutorial.
I have talked to the publisher of the book, and we can arrange a direct
shipment of the books to NZ from the UK for the tutorial.
They have offered us the book, including shipping, for slightly less than
GBP 30, or about NZ$80. This price comes down to less than NZ$70 as we
order more.
We can only get these prices if we order suitable quantities, so I need
people to indicate to me if they are interested in purchasing the book at
the tutorial. If we get enough numbers, I will confirm to all interested
the exact price before we place the order.
As they have to be shipped to us in time for NZNOG at the start of Feb, we
need to know numbers ASAP.
Cheers,
Jamie
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Curtis office: G.1.01
WAND Group, Dept of Computer Science phone: +64 7 838 4136
University of Waikato, mobile: +64 21 392 102
Hamilton, fax: +64 7 858 5095
New Zealand email: jamie(a)wand.net.nz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:41 AM 12/17/2004 +1300, Jamie Baddeley wrote:
>On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 22:55, Simon Blake wrote:
> > He's always keen as mustard for non-royalty-attracting audio, in
> > whatever format you've got. If you don't send him something, you got no
> > rights to whinge at what he plays.
> >
>http://creativecommons.org/wired/
>
>No whinging from me then!
noted - I'll make up a new disk :-)
rich
We have more tutorials for NZNOG'05!
Philip Hazel, lead author of Exim is coming from Cambridge, UK to give a
one day tutorial on configuring this MTA.
Juniper are providing a hands on tutorial on "Border Routing in ISP and
Large Private Networks". Due to the hands on nature of this tutorial
it is limited to 16 places only. Places will be allocated first come
first served based on registration time and a reserve list will be kept.
Note that registering for this tutorial does not guarantee a place.
Places will be confirmed by email.
As always full details are on the website http://www.nznog.org . You
can choose which tutorial you wish to attend when you register.
Note that any attendees who have already registered and paid for
NZNOG'05 who wish to change their details due to these announcements
should email registration(a)nznog.org. Due to the first-come first-served
arrangements for the Juniper tutorial, these people will get priority.
Richard Nelson
WAND.
We are working as hard as possible to confirm the speakers for NZNOG,
but it will still be some time till the complete programme is available.
To help people who are deciding whether to come, here is the latest
list of the planned international speakers. (Topics are still provisional.)
Confirmed:
Vijay Gill (AOL) "Big Fast Networks"
Bill Woodcock (PCH) "INOC-DBA"
Bill Norton (Equinix) "Peering"
Joe Abley (ISC) "History of NZ Peering"
Subject to final confirmation
George Michaelson (APNIC) "Address Space Usage"
Bill Manning (EP.net) "DNSSEC"
Biographical details and talk abstracts will be added to the website as
they become available.
We also have a couple of extra tutorial streams to add. These will be
advertised later today. People who have already registered for NZNOG
will be given the opportunity to enroll for these.
Richard Nelson
WAND
um..
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
richardn(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz
(generated from registration(a)nznog.org)
SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:<steve(a)focb.co.nz>
SIZE=1986:
host mail.cs.waikato.ac.nz [130.217.241.36]: 550 Please see
http://spf.pobox.com/why.html?sender=steve%40focb.co.nz&ip=130.217.250.15&r…
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <steve(a)focb.co.nz>
Received: from [64.246.60.77] (helo=wibble.focb.co.nz)
by warlock.cs.waikato.ac.nz with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1CegkR-0005mq-00
for <registration(a)nznog.org>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:31:51 +1300
Received: (qmail 10492 invoked by uid 501); 15 Dec 2004 21:31:49 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs(a)127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 15 Dec 2004 21:31:49 -0000
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:31:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Steve Phillips <steve(a)focb.co.nz>
To: registration(a)nznog.org
Can you guys please fix your registration/mail system ? and someone
really should be told that bouncing mail based on SPF records alone is a
bad thing [tm] (sending here because I cant seem to mail them directly..)
--
Steve.
No.
Most of ours have come from (so far):
64.191.62.135
61.59.33.44
217.107.212.104
219.240.134.41
213.215.76.1
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Hodgetts [mailto:chris(a)archnetnz.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2004 9:40 a.m.
To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] SSH login attempts
Were the majority of attempts comming from:
210.0.192.40
Thats where I seem to be getting the majority of my attempts from.
<snip>
More scary than funny, the math I mean:
"We've got well over 100,000 mailboxes in our email infrastructure,
[deletia] he created several distribution lists. Each distribution list
had about a quarter of the mailboxes in the company on it (so there were
about 13,000 mailboxes on each list)."
A quarter of 100,000 is ~13,000? But later:
"Remember, there are 25,000 people on this mailing list."
Later still:
"First off, the original mail went to 13,000 users."
Further:
"For the sake of argument, let's assume that 10% of the recipients on
each message (130) are on each server."
10% of 13,000 would be 1,300? Not in MS land it would seem.
It would seem that Corporate blogs are either as garbled as Corporate
email or they actually have no clue.
Hamish.
-----Original Message-----
From: James J. Guidera [mailto:james(a)miracle.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2004 8:52 a.m.
To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: [nznog] Bedlam DL3
As a Wednesday morning laugh,
Many people read the blog on msdn on Bedlam DL3?
Bit of a laugh....
http://blogs.msdn.com/exchange/archive/2004/04/08/109626.aspx
Cheers
James
>Many people read the blog on msdn on Bedlam DL3?
>
>Bit of a laugh....
>http://blogs.msdn.com/exchange/archive/2004/04/08/109626.aspx
Good to see them get a taste of their own medicine. I have no sympathy
(for the company) whatsoever, they should have designed the MTA better.
(Plenty of sympathy for the poor bastards who had to deal with it though)
Lesley Walker
Former Exchange admin
