- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Allied Telesys Media Converter
by Drew Broadley 25 May '04

25 May '04

Hi all, Does someone happen to have a used Allied Telesys twin-fibre (100base-FX) to rj45 (100base-TX) media converter for lend or sale? We are having issues with our telstraclear circuit link and telstraclear keep throwing us the same brand different model converter. We have had issues with two media converters now and I wish to experiment with another brand (specifically Allied Telesys, as word of advice from a technician at Inspire who solved their issues) Can you please contact me off list or onlist to discuss any others that have had the same problems with these Transition media convertors. Cheers, Drew

2 1

Re: [nznog] Peering.
by Brian Gibbons 24 May '04

24 May '04

>From: "Drew Broadley" <drew(a)corrupt.co.nz> >We could all possibly grab every redundant 10mbit hub >in NZ and connect them down SH1 through the north island >and call it CountryLink ? OK, CityLink now runs CountryLink, and every NZ ISP is connected via a single peering exchange. CountyLink should then write to TelestraClear explaining the change in topology and how much it is going to cost TelstraClear to connect to CountryLink for "Domestic Peering", a per MB charge would seem appropriate. Cheers BG

7 8

Re: [nznog] Peering.
by Richard Naylor 24 May '04

24 May '04

At 03:28 p.m. 25/05/2004 +1200, Paul Brislen wrote: >If you (Customer A) set up a video server in Invercargil >(JuhaDownCountry.com) that for whatever reason got a lot of traffic, the >telcos would have to install new capacity/servers/gear/etc to cope with the >demand and they would need to recoup that cost from you, Customer A. being the owner of several video servers I can reply on this one. If you use the model they mention then Peter Jackson would have to pay the Embassy to screen his movies as well as the Embassy charging the public to watch. To give you a very real example. LOTR-3 Premiere. We got paid nothing for webcasting the event. Based on the extra traffic that went to TCL, they earned $250,000 in 5 hours of webcast. Not small change. TCNZ would have earned around $500,000 had they peered properly. The others probably earned around another $250,000 Had we not anycast LOTR-3 we would have had to pay our ISP. We deliberately engineered it to avoid that possibility, having accidentally generated a huge bill the year before. Yes a telco would have to install capacity to my server, but if they peer properly its for the traffic requests generated by their customers that runs over that peering link. Its exactly why all my servers are at exchanges, so that ISPs can get to the content with the least effort and cost. rich

2 1

Re: [nznog] Peering.
by Richard Naylor 24 May '04

24 May '04

At 05:16 p.m. 25/05/2004 +1200, Juha Saarinen wrote: >You're kidding? no - its for real >Oh hang on, you mean that TCL charged their customers some $250k, etc, not >that you paid them to send the data to their customers? looking at the incremental traffic flows and using TCL traffic charges, we estimate they earned $250k in 5 hours. We didn't get paid. But the beer from TV3 was nice ;-) rich

1 0

RE: [nznog] Peering.
by Regan Murphy 24 May '04

24 May '04

> Looks like Telecom and Telstra are trying to put on a squeeze > in order to make a couple more thousand per month. > > I'm a little surprised at the timing, Telecom has a bit of an > advantage right now since it's got a monopoly on ADSL > bandwidth but bitstream is only a few months away (allegedly) > so it's going to be a lot easier for ADSL customers to switch > pretty soon. > > Telstra doesn't even have that sort of leverage. If TelstraClear put a bit of time and effort into selling their services and retaining existing customers than putting all their fight into peering and local loop unbundling they would be a lot better off than they are now I'm sure. I have heard from several people who have had trouble buying products from them - both voice and data (business) - and have had endless troubles finding someone to return their calls. The unlucky ones to have actually bought their products from TelstraClear then have trouble getting service out of the Account Reps which seem to turnover several times a year... Clear was a great company but unfortunately they have been ruined. -- Regan

4 3

RE: [nznog] Peering.
by Craig Spiers 24 May '04

24 May '04

Let's call it.. CollisionNet :) -----Original Message----- From: Drew Broadley [mailto:drew(a)corrupt.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 25 May 2004 1:51 p.m. To: Brian Gibbons Cc: Craig Spiers; 'Juha Saarinen'; 'Jeremy Brooking'; 'nznog' Subject: Re: [nznog] Peering. Brian Gibbons wrote: >>From: "Craig Spiers" <craig(a)concept.net.nz> If telstraclear, was to >>stop peering at APE, and remove 'ports and connections to there' >>wouldn't that limit them to only having 'domestic' data inside their >>own network? >> >> > >This looks more like an attempt to change NZ from a Peering model to a >Tiered model, perhaps Telstra think they have the best backbone in NZ >and might be able to monopolise on it :) > >I am not completely familiar with the WIX/APE Topology, is there a >dedicated circuit between the two to carry domestic traffic? > >If not, is it possible that domestic traffic could traverse both APE >and WIX via TCL peering circuits to each? > We could all possibly grab every redundant 10mbit hub in NZ and connect them down SH1 through the north island and call it CountryLink ? Add up all those offcuts of Cat5 plus these redundant hubs, we could start our own national ISP with VoIP ;)

2 1

Re: [nznog] Peering.
by Jeremy Brooking 24 May '04

24 May '04

Craig Spiers wrote: > Let's call it.. CollisionNet :) > For SH1... Thats rather appropriate :)

1 0

Xtra de-peering in Wellington.
by Simon Blake 20 May '04

20 May '04

Just an FYI, For those that may be wondering why they're getting increased load on links in and out of APE, Xtra withdrew all routes and dropped their BGP session to WIX at about 11am this morning. This left a few parties delivering content to Xtra customers high and dry, and does little for the stability of the Interweb in NZ, which is a shame. Hopefully, the folks at TCNZ will see the light shortly, and turn it back on. Cheers Si

2 3

Port filtering by NZ ISPs?
by Neil Gardner 19 May '04

19 May '04

Hi guys - I'm trying to conduct some penetration testing on some networking equipment and I was finding that some ports were being filtered when someone else at the company was using an **** dialup account to try some things. A call to the **** helpdesk yielded exactly the results I expected so I was hoping someone here could give a more intelligent answer. I'd really like to find out what various ISPs are filtering from dialup or other pools - please email me directly if you have anything to offer. I am happy to sign and fax back NDAs if required and the info would be used for nothing but checking against our own test results or selecting ISPs for use during testing. Cheers - Neil G

1 0

Spam Legislation Workshop
by David Farrar 18 May '04

18 May '04

Hi all, You may have seen that the Government has released a discussion document on anti-spam legislation for New Zealand. As part of the consultation on any legislation, InternetNZ has arranged with the Government for an industry workshop on Thursday 24 June in Wellington for interested members of the Internet, business, legal and educational communities. The aim is to help make any legislation as effective and useful as possible. A formal invite has gone out snail mail to ISPs and others. I thought I'd mention it here also, so people can pass it on informally to anyone appropriate within their organisation etc. The draft programme for the workshop, a registration form, and a link to the Government's discussion document are all on InternetNZ's website at www.internetnz.net.nz. Cheers DPF -- David Farrar e-mail: david(a)farrar.com blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz msn: dpf666(a)hotmail.com icq: 29964527

3 4