- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: Rescue from alligators in the swamp - note from APNIC
by John Tran 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Hello all, This is a follow up to my previous email. Assignments within the blocks listed below have been restored to the public APNIC Whois Database. If you wish to make any of these assignments private or if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact APNIC helpdesk at <helpdesk(a)apnic.net> or phone +61-7-3858-3180. Kind regards, Son > > > 5) Next steps > > > ------------- > > > Under the database privacy policy, all non-portable assignments and > > > non-portable sub-allocations that have not been specifically marked as > > > public have now been made private. However, because some allocations > > > and assignments within certain ranges appear to have been considered > > > 'portable' by default from earlier practices in New Zealand, APNIC > > > will restore the affected ranges from private to public. The ranges > > > in question are: > > > - 202.27.0./16 > > > - 202.36.0.0/16 > > > - 202.37.0.0/16 > > > - 202.49.0.0/16, and > > > - 202.50.0.0/16 > > > > > > Anyone holding addresses from these ranges that they wish to be made > > > private, should contact APNIC helpdesk. The update will be done this > > > week.

1 0

Re: [nznog] Rescue from alligators in the swamp - note from APNIC (fwd)
by John Tran 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Dear Mathew, >*SNIP* a really interesting e-mail > >First, John, that was most enlightening. Thanks. > I am very pleased to read that it was helpful. Thanks. >One point that was raised in this discussion is that, for many NZ (and >other pacific-based) organisations, a /21 is a huge requirement. A lot >of companies can justify a /24, maybe even a /23, or a /22 at a stretch, >but a /21 is just out of the realms of possibility, probably ever. There will always be a balance between aggregation in the routing table and conservation. Not everyone can have portable address space. However as the years have progressed the trend in the community has been to agree to smaller sized initial allocations, recognising that there are those out there with smaller requirements. To qualify for a /21 allocation an organisation needs to demonstrate that they need /23 immediately and /22 in 12 months time. By "allocation" I mean that the organisation has customers that they wish to assign non-portable address space to. If an organisation does not qualify under this policy and is multi-homed or about to be multi-homed, they can apply for an address assignment under the "Small Multi-homing policy". By "assignment" I mean that they will use the address space on their own network and it will not be delegated to customers. There is no minimum or maximum size under this policy. You can find more information on both at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html >APNIC policies seem to be more biased towards the A than the P, even >with >the change from /20 to /21. I do recognise what you are saying. Indeed APNIC has appointed 'liaison officers' for both the Pacific and for South Asia to try to ensure that needs and voices are heard. At the same time there are many ISPs or organisations throughout the entire region with smaller requirements , and perhaps you are observing that it is the large guys who tend to get involved. You need only think of Nepal, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia...... there are many others of course. >... Obviously a country could set up an NIR to >do >smaller allocations, but a lot of the little islands out there are >unlikely to have the infrastructure to run their own NIR with any kind >of >reliability. Not to mention that their sub-allocation requirements >wouldn't justify the resources and expense. The best place to raise these concerns are on the Policy SIG mailing list. I would recommend that you subscribe. More information is at: http://www.apnic.net/community/lists >With this in mind, is there anything that can be done to create >something >like a sub-RIR under APNIC to better serve the needs of the large number The only sub-structures currently within the membership structure are the NIRs and LIRs. NIRs are obligated to follow the policies of APNIC, so that the minimum size will be the same. However they are free to develop some policies that are specific to local conditions. >can >suggest policy, but the actual voting is weighted towards large In policy making there is no voting. (In determining fee structures there is as this is deemed a membership issue). The principle observed is 'consensus'. This means that the majority has to agree. One hand is raised for each person in the room and we try to include those that are participating remotely. It is not necessary for you to turn up to have a voice. Aside from the remote participation facilities (jabber, webcast) there are also periods before (one month) and after (2 months) the meeting where policies are sent to the mailing lists for further comment. The aim of all this is to try to maximise the input across the region, recognising that not everyone can make it to the meeting or can comment at the appropriate time. I hope this helps. Kind regards Son

1 0

Blackholing rfc1918 queries
by Simon Lyall 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Does anyone know the current correct way to blackhole queries for rfc1918 reverses using Bind9? I had a look at as112.net (and 192.0.32.18/31) and googled a bit but I can't seem to find anything. I'm sure somebody was going on about it a year or so back and encouraging everybody to but a certain config in. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

2 1

Re: [nznog] makana.co.nz spam ?
by Mark Foster 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Their Pri NS appears to have IP 202.27.187.82, which based on traceroute is carried via Telstraclear to Snap. Further, if you whois you'll see that its clearly Snap aka Netaccess Christchurch. You may like to try abuse(a)snap.net.nz as a guess. But i've not heard of them before, if it helps. Mark. On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:27:08 +1300, Simon Byrnand <simon(a)igrin.co.nz> wrote : > Hi All, > > Has anyone else receved spam from "Makana Confections" <sales(a)makana.co.nz> > recently ? (Or in the past) > *snipped*

1 0

makana.co.nz spam ?
by Simon Byrnand 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Hi All, Has anyone else receved spam from "Makana Confections" <sales(a)makana.co.nz> recently ? (Or in the past) They seem to be at it again, sending unsolicited "promotions" of their products despite previous complaints. Back in April this year they spammed hundreds of our customers (including me personally) with almost identical material to this latest batch, and at the time I forwared abuse complaints to the only relevant email addresses I could find, including soa(a)saraden.co.nz, postmaster(a)saraden.co.nz and abuse(a)saraden.co.nz who going by domainz records appear to be their webhost. At no time did I ever receive any response. Thanks to the wonders of "private" APNIC entries for NZGATE ranges where the address block that the sending mail server resides, its hard to find much more information ;-) (Hopefully that will change if APNIC goes ahead with making the private entries public again) Anybody heard of these guys ? Sent complaints to them before ? Regards, Simon Byrnand iGRIN Internet

1 0

Re: SPF and mail forwarding (was Re: [nznog] Sendmail Question)
by Ewen McNeill 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

In message <20041128083138.GB27487(a)walnut.gen.nz>, Richard Hector writes: >On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 12:20:03PM +1300, Ewen McNeill wrote: >> usera(a)ispa was one address so subscribed. Unfortunately usera(a)ispa >> actually forwards mail to userb(a)ispb, without rewriting the envelope >> from address -- [bounces because SPF check failed at ispb MX] > >Perhaps I'm a little confused, but if usera is rejecting mail from >servers that he has arranged to forward him mail, that's his own silly >fault? usera doesn't run the mail servers at ispb (or ispa for that matter). It is ispb's mail servers that are doing the SPF check, and rejecting the message, because it's been forwarded in a way that is not compliant with SPF. Other than complaining to ispb -- and they probably wouldn't even know to do so -- usera/userb can do little to influence the message being accepted or rejected at ispb. Viz: 1. spfprotecteddomain MX -> ispa MX: mail from: user(a)spfprotecteddomain rcpt to: usera(a)ispa Result: message accepted (passes SPF check if one is done) 2. ispa configuration for usera says "forward to userb(a)ispb" 3. ispa MX -> ispb MX: mail from: user(a)spfprotecteddomain rcpt to: userb(a)ispb Result: SPF check fails because ispa MX is not in the SPF from list, and message is rejected (and bounced by ispa MX back to user(a)spfprotecteddomain). SPF's answer to this is that mail servers should rewrite the from address -- complete with lots of magic about how it should be done (still being debated). Rewriting it to be "mail from: usera(a)isap" would work just about as well in practice in most situations (bounces go to the "wrong" place, but bounces are largely broken by all the abuse of them going on anyway). This is what procmail and some other things do. FWIW, this is not a theoritical situation. This is really happening right now. And I ended up relaxing some of my SPF statements as a "work around". As I said in the beginning I'd like to see more ISPs that offer "mail forwarding" services to their customers forward that mail in a way that won't cause SPF rejections further down the track. Like it or not SPF is being implemented, and trying to ignore it will not stop your customers mail being bounced. Ewen

3 2

NZNOG '05 Progress and Logo
by Jamie Curtis 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Hi all, Preparation for the NZNOG conference is progressing well with the organising committee working hard on pinning down the final details of the programme. We are currently aiming to open registrations, along with a new look website, sometime next week. One critical component still missing is a logo for this years conference. If there are any of you who feel like getting creative, please feel free to submit logos to me via e-mail. If your logo is chosen as the best, you can expect much kudos at the bar, possibly along with a few free drinks ! As we need the page ready ASAP, logos will need to be submitted as soon as possible, but no later than first thing Monday. Last years logo can be found on the old site: http://www.nznog.org/2004/ 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Rescue from alligators in the swamp - note from APNIC
by John Tran 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hello all, First, as a general note, it is worth mentioning that there are several staff at the APNIC Secretariat who keenly follow the discussions on NZNOG. Currently, we have been closely following the discussion on the effects of implementing the 'whois privacy' policy on address ranges in use in New Zealand. This email is intended to clarify some of the issues raised, to provide explanations, and to try to identify a path forward. As there have been quite a lot of issues raised, I apologise in advance for the length of this reply. 1) Creating and changing policies --------------------------------- It is not necessary to be a member of APNIC to be involved in the policy making process. Anyone can propose policy changes and take part in the policy discussions. Also, you dont have to attend the meetings to take part. APNIC provides facilities for people not present to take part in discussions while the meetings are actually taking place. In addition, everyone is welcome to join the APNIC mailing lists where policies are proposed and discussed. The main list used to discuss the management of Internet resources is the Policy Special Interest Group (SIG) mailing list. A description of the Policy SIG is available at: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/archive/sigs/policy.html Details of how to subscribe to this and other APNIC mailing lists is available at: http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/ It is highly recommended that anyone holding resources does subscribe to this list (and others) so that they can voice their opinions and give feedback when policies are circulated for comment. You can also find a list of active policies under discussion at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/ Feedback and participation in developing policies from the NZ community is very much appreciated. 2) Membership fees and criteria for portable allocations and assignments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The fees for membership can be found here: http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html The criteria for a minium allocation (/21*) of portable address space are as follows: - the applicant must have used a /23 from their upstream provider or demonstrate an immediate need for a /23; - the applicant must have complied with applicable policies in managing all address space previously allocated to it; - the applicant must demonstrate a detailed plan for use of a /22 within a year; and commit to renumber from previously deployed space into the new address space within one year. [* it is worth noting that the size of the minimum allocation and the criteria for obtaining an allocation were recently lowered from a /20 to a /21 as a result of input and consensus from the community] More information is here: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html#9.3 If you wish to obtain a portable assignment of address space as a multihomed organisation you can apply under the small multi-homing assignment policy. The criteria are: - the requestor must be currently multihomed with provider-based addresses, or demonstrates a plan to multihome within one month; and - agree to renumber out of previously assigned address space. The small multi-homing assignments are available to both members and non-members. 3) National Internet Registries (NIRs) -------------------------------------- APNIC recognises NIRs which operate within certain economies. Prospective NIRs must meet specific criteria and adopt the operational policies detailed in: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/nir-criteria.html and http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/operational-policies-nirs.html 4) Whois database privacy policy -------------------------------------- Details of and the motivations for this policy are documented at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-007-v001.html In summary, the policy means that all non-portable assignments and non-portable sub-allocations will be private by default. Details of these resources remain registered in the whois database but are just not visible to the public. They can be made visible by the custodian of the allocation object through MyAPNIC, to which all APNIC members have access. 5) Next steps ------------- Under the database privacy policy, all non-portable assignments and non-portable sub-allocations that have not been specifically marked as public have now been made private. However, because some allocations and assignments within certain ranges appear to have been considered 'portable' by default from earlier practices in New Zealand, APNIC will restore the affected ranges from private to public. The ranges in question are: - 202.27.0./16 - 202.36.0.0/16 - 202.37.0.0/16 - 202.49.0.0/16, and - 202.50.0.0/16 Anyone holding addresses from these ranges that they wish to be made private, should contact APNIC helpdesk. The update will be done this week. 6) NZTelecom custodianship -------------------------- In regard to the wider issue of NZTelecom as a custodian of the ranges listed above, APNIC operated in good faith, trying to promote aggregation and provide a clearer framework for the custodianship of address space in New Zealand. That said, clearly there are now major concerns being expressed on this mailing list concerning portability of blocks within these ranges. The APNIC Secretariat will examine the records within these ranges and will work with NZTelecom, affected parties, and the community to find an appropriate solution. The solution will not happen overnight but the process is beginning immediately. Of course, APNIC will keep the New Zealand community fully up to date on the progress of the discussions. The APNIC Secretariat would be happy to assist anyone with concerns. If you want to discuss your concerns with us, please call the helpdesk on +61-7-3858-3188 or send email to <helpdesk(a)apnic.net>. 7) The past and the future -------------------------- Clearly, much of this stems back to a time when the framework for allocating and assigning resources was much less defined than it is today. The RIRs, with the community, are trying to provide a responsible framework for managing resources, both historical and existing resources. Some of you may be aware of the ERX transfer project in which resources in use in this region were previously registered in the ARIN database and are now being transferred to the APNIC database and are now managed by APNIC. More information about this project is available at: http://www.apnic.net/db/erx/ Many other steps are being taken. One such example is the policy recently implemented to support transfers of historical address space: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-006-v001.html Others recently approved by the community, but yet to be implemented are: * Recovery of unused address space: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-017-v001.html * Protecting historical records in the whois database: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-018-v001.html I would strongly urge anyone who is a custodian of Internet resources to read these policies and to contact APNIC if they have any queries. Finally it is worth mentioning that four APNIC staff members will be at the forthcoming NZNOG meeting, and will be happy to meet with people and to provide a forum for discussing these issues. Regards Son ____________________________________________________________________ Resources Services Manager <Son(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> _____________________________________________________________________

3 3

Citynet, TelstraClear, Telecom, Orcon
by Joshua Brady 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Could someone from Citynet, TelstraClear, Telecom, Orcon please contact me off-list please. Regards, Joshua Brady

1 0

IPv6 transit in .nz
by Lincoln Reid 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hi, Is anyone here able to offer international IPv6 transit in New Zealand currently? Ultimately I would like to start publishing AAAA records for some of our infrastructure, which means there is a little more pressure on to provide connectivity more compelling than through a tunnel broker eg. ~500ms, sometimes lossy, sometimes entirely broken. My experience as an end user through a tunnel broker accessing sites with AAAA records like www.apnic.net or www.isc.org is that the performance is often bad enough for me to kill my IPv6 connectivity to maintain sanity. Our requirements are very modest, even a shared 512 kbit is probably fine as long as it works most of the time. If anyone has any pointers get in touch. Cheers, -- Lincoln Reid Systems Engineer LinuxNet - AS18119 lincoln(a)linuxnet.co.nz Phone: +64 4 939 2200 Fax: +64 4 939 2201

1 0