- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] legal threats from DE Technologies re web commerce
by David Farrar 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

Robert Hunt wrote: > Obviously I am sorely disappointed that the NZ Patent > Office is granting patents of this kind, and am reviewing > both political and legal options for raising this issue in > the public eye. Alongside Microsoft's moves to patent > .Net APIs we are of course, seeing some serious challenges > to developer freedoms, and end user's integration choices, > if the arena of intellectual patents is not balanced with > concern for open standards in at least some of the world. > > Well that is off topic now I am sure... I am happy to > set up a list for discussing this issue if anyone else is > interested, let me know or point me to a pre-existing nz > list on this matter. The issue came up yesterday on InternetNZ's public-discuss list. Archives at http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/pipermail/public-discuss/2003-July/thre… and list at http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/mailman/listinfo/public-discuss InternetNZ is considering engaging a QC who is an expert in the intellectual property arena to provide some initial advice on the situation which has arisen. No decision has been taken yet, but InternetNZ would be interested in hearing from anyone else who may be affected by this. At a minimum I am sure we will be happy to help co-ordinate information sharing. DPF (VP and Chair of Legal & Regulatory, InternetNZ)

1 0

Re: [nznog] Netsites Domain Name Changes page offline?
by Ewen McNeill 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307081250150.6688-100000(a)blue.darkmere.gen.nz>, Lin N ah writes: >On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Mark Davies wrote: >> [Mark's netsite changes list] >> I got asked on 1 July by Nick Griffin to not publish the changes list until >> some review I wasn't aware of that is apparently currently happening was >> completed. >> >Perhaps the DNC should explain to us why there is a problem with >Mark's excellent netsites page. The explanation I was given was that apparently some spammers had been trawling through the list of new domains to figure out what to look up to pick up a new collection of registrar/registrant/admin/technical contact addresses to spam. Apparently at least one spammer actually claimed to have used Mark's changes list as a source, which is presumably why the interium action was to ask for it to be taken down. As Steven Heath noted, there is a mention in the June Registrar newsletter; and it will be in the minutes from the June NZOC meeting which should be up RSN I'm told (apparently they were overlooked for a while in amongst everything else going on and now just need to be reviewed by NZOC for accuracy). And there should be some sort of call-for-comments coming out relatively soon (sometime in July?). >Is it doing any harm or is it because it isn't published by DNC and so >not sanctioned? Actually as I remember it Mark's site was one of the few that made it onto the original blessed list of those who could still do zone transfers when restrictions were put in place (a couple of years back). AFAICT it's merely the "source of addresses for spam" problem which makes it an issue, rather than "not run by the DNC". Ewen

2 1

RE: [nznog] Effective RBL's
by Michael Bordignon 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

> Does anyone have experience with good RBL's . A client is > running Mdaemon and looking to increase the level of SPAM > protection. By Default its running relays.osirussoft.com, > relays.ordb.com & bl.spamcop.net Anyone have any others that > function well ? I use these with exim: rbl_domains = relays.ordb.org/reject:list.dsbl.org/reject:relays.osirusoft.com/warn:blackh oles.easynet.nl\ /reject:bl.spamcop.net/reject:blackholes.five-ten-sg.com/warn Michael

1 0

RE: [nznog] Crimes Amendment Bill No 6 Now Law
by Donald Neal 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

> From: Gordon Smith [mailto:gordon(a)morenet.net.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 9 July 2003 07:47 > To: Donald Neal; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: RE: [nznog] Crimes Amendment Bill No 6 Now Law > > > Even when its particularly relevant to network operations? > Like it or not, this is something that does affect our operations. Discussion of operational effects of a new law, based on knowledge of contents of that law - in. Discussion of what might be in that law - generally out. Sysadmins and network engineers seeking to give their opinions of interpretation of an Act - especially bad idea. - Donald Neal List Administrator > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Donald Neal [mailto:Donald.Neal(a)telecom.co.nz] > > Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2003 3:42 PM > > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > Subject: RE: [nznog] Crimes Amendment Bill No 6 Now Law > > > > > > Let's just bear in mind that postings of a legal nature are > > discouraged on this list. > > > > - Donald Neal > > List Administrator > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Michael Sutton 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

Point of Technical peturbance Multicast is much more efficient. The data does not flood to every router in New Zealand. Actual data, just like unicast, only routes to those branches of the network where there is actual demand at that instance in time. If there is no downstream client application (player) requesting the data feed, no data will be sent to that location. The only data held by routers is information about the identity of the upstream multicast source, if there is client request. If the demand was only in Wellington the multicast data would not leave Wellington. When someone joins in Auckland then the data would flow to Auckland and no-where-else... When the Auckland users ceases the session data transfer would be pruned back to Wellington while the multicast session continues. Regards Michael Sutton http://www.internetnz.co.nz/members/by-elections/030619byelection.html http://www.internetnz.co.nz/biographies/bio03-msutton.html -----Original Message----- From: Richard Naylor [mailto:richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:40 To: Ewen McNeill; Hamish MacEwan Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand Its just as the size of "live" viewer base gets smaller, and bandwidth higher, multicasting doesn't seem worth the effort. If I stream an event for say 10 viewers, why should the rest of the NZ net get it sent to them without asking for it. rich _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Michael Sutton 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

I agree with your take on the issue, Ewen... Further, it is surely in the "National Interest" that multicast be in active operational capability today for the "Public Internet" so that in the event of a future national crisis such as a SARS, Foot and Mouth, Small Pox or when a similar situation occurs the facility can be used to its best technical advantage. It is then important to: communicate, instruct & train, professionals and the public - while reducing close personnel contact. Multicast can be used to provide "low cost" high quality content injection which of itself does not cause degradation of New Zealand network performance at any location during a strategic performance window. Alternatives such as Consumer Digital Satellite TV would cost, at list prices, significant dollars to open up spot channels for a period of days || weeks || months, and in such circumstances the Ministries available discretionary funds would be under severe pressure, and therefore may be excluded as a viable option. However, multicast would help, as the cost of 48hours digital satellite television broadcast might equate to the cost of one years multicast distribution @ 300kbs. During the SARs containment emergency, Beijing and other locations in China closed schools and other education institutions and made children stay home. Their schools used telephones and the Public Internet to conduct distance learning. What would happen in New Zealand if all schools in Auckland and other city locations closed. Multicast was also used to connect SARS support hubs in Asia. Therefore prior to such an emergency, operational multicast services today would enable strategic content provider organisations to distribute current operational materials for capture and/or real-time display and be prepared and confident that such a system can be relied on as a front-line communication capability. So... reliable operation today ensures access when Noah needs an Ark... Nobody will try to implement it the day a Balloon goes UP... Hope you are all having a great conference... Is Joe warbling now... Best Regards Michael Sutton InternetNZ By-election Candidate - Councillor Vote now :) (disgraceful lobby) http://www.internetnz.co.nz/members/by-elections/030619byelection.html http://www.internetnz.co.nz/biographies/bio03-msutton.html -----Original Message----- From: Ewen McNeill [mailto:ewen(a)naos.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:06 To: Hamish MacEwan Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand <snip> It does, however, seem to me rather counter productive to insist that they must use unicast, must use the bandwidth inefficiently, in order to some how deter this. At best all that's likely to achieve is that there's even less bandwidth available for other things. (Witness allocations of the frequency spectrum to radio, TV, etc, and what's left for ham radio operators.) And to make it even harder for "small operators" to join in -- so bang goes your online equivilent of public access TV (it's just too expensive to get a pipe big enough to unicast it to a reasoanble audience). <snip>.... Indeed. And that survives partly because many people "need" to be at work at the same time, which is largely true because of network effects (eg, you'd like the cafe to be open when you want to get morning tea, and people need to be in the same place at the same time for meetings, etc). And in the same way when something "interesting" happens lots of people are going to "need" to see it at once, if only to keep up with the Jones and be able to talk about it at morning tea the next day. To use your earlier analogy providing more buses/trains/etc can help to reduce this congestion. And in the same way multicasting can help reduce the congestion. But apparently buses/trains/etc are good, and multicasting is bad, for reasons I don't follow.

1 0

Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Ewen McNeill 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

In message <20030708092651.GM4808(a)stuckist.macewan.gen.nz>, Hamish MacEwan writes: >On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 13:05 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote: >> In message <5.2.0.9.0.20030627160856.02023200(a)pele.citylink.co.nz>, Richard Naylor writes: >> >ah - its that word "channel" that I don't see in the future. Such a >> >dated concept. >> >> Ah. Channels are double-plus-ungood. Call it a stream if it makes >> you feel happier. Or VDC or whatever. > >I think Rich's point is broader than "channels," it goes to the notion >of "broadcast," which, while like most things is not going to go away >anytime soon, but the option of obtaining material from P2P or other >sources (Tivo as so aptly observed by Joe) and assembling your own >experience is becoming more feasible, Except that a Tivo listens to (a bunch of) broadcast channels (there, two horrible words in a row!) and caches the "interesting" stuff that it sees for later viewing. The problem, IMHO, is not the broadcasting, or the channels, themselves. It's how people make use of them. Broadcasting is a fairly efficient technique to get information to a whole bunch of people in one go (for them to use now or later). Channels are an efficient way to know which broadcast to listen to for what things. I simply don't buy the argument that says that because the "must watch it when it screens, must watch what they want to show" model of broadcast channels is bad (which I definitely agree with -- I haven't even had a TV for 5+ years), that means that all the components of it (broadcasting, channels, etc) are totally without merit. To get, vaguely, back on topic -- multicasting is just "broadcasting with focus" -- if you like it's a more efficient form of broadcasting for a medium which can handle sending only to interested parties (eg, a packet switched network like the Internet, as opposed to a frequency division "network" like radio waves). >[Spoonfeeding, etc] >This is what makes me leery of attempts to make the Internet a better >broadcast medium than it already isn't. It may make non-broadcast use >more difficult. Unintended consequences, increased core complexity, et al. I'm not especially convinced by this argument either. There's a whole lot of money behind turning the Internet into a "content provision" network -- and I suspect they'll succeed in doing what they want to do irrespective of whether we try to make it more difficult. It does, however, seem to me rather counter productive to insist that they must use unicast, must use the bandwidth inefficiently, in order to some how deter this. At best all that's likely to achieve is that there's even less bandwidth available for other things. (Witness allocations of the frequency spectrum to radio, TV, etc, and what's left for ham radio operators.) And to make it even harder for "small operators" to join in -- so bang goes your online equivilent of public access TV (it's just too expensive to get a pipe big enough to unicast it to a reasoanble audience). [Choose to watch something, join VDC starting it soon] >Yes, like video rental already provides, without the drive there and >back, and PPV on Sky Digital. Yes, like a video rental. Without having to leave the house in the cold of winter. And without having to deal with the fact that some other bastard has taken out the thing you wanted to watch. And, if done properly, without having to watch it all at once so you can return it in time. (I've never seen how PPV on Sky Digital works, so I couldn't say how it compares.) >PS. Road congestion, like unicast broadcast congestion, seems to arise >from the continued belief that we all have to use the road at the same >times (morning and night, Monday-Friday) Indeed. And that survives partly because many people "need" to be at work at the same time, which is largely true because of network effects (eg, you'd like the cafe to be open when you want to get morning tea, and people need to be in the same place at the same time for meetings, etc). And in the same way when something "interesting" happens lots of people are going to "need" to see it at once, if only to keep up with the Jones and be able to talk about it at morning tea the next day. To use your earlier analogy providing more buses/trains/etc can help to reduce this congestion. And in the same way multicasting can help reduce the congestion. But apparently buses/trains/etc are good, and multicasting is bad, for reasons I don't follow. Ewen

2 1

RE: [nznog] Crimes Amendment Bill No 6 Now Law
by Donald Neal 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

Let's just bear in mind that postings of a legal nature are discouraged on this list. - Donald Neal List Administrator Donald Neal | Doctor: Did you see what I didn't see? Technical Specialist | Romana: No. Operations Engineering| Doctor: Nor did I. Alcatel NZ Ltd | - Douglas Adams, Shada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 5

Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
by Ewen McNeill 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

In message <5.2.0.9.0.20030627160856.02023200(a)pele.citylink.co.nz>, Richard Nayl or writes: >At 03:54 p.m. 27/06/2003 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote: >>In message <5.2.0.9.0.20030627141054.038683c0(a)pele.citylink.co.nz>, >>Richard Naylor writes: >> >>[Multicast] >> >Well the biggest part of the business is video on demand and that can >> >really only be unicast as getting viewers to agree on what they watch is >> >like agreeing on a TV Channel in a huge flat - hopeless. >> >>[... "on demand" doesn't necessarily mean "instantly" ...] >>Which means that for popular stuff that is "on demand" it might not be >>enough to have one channel with it, where the wait time is, say, 15 >>minutes for it to cycle around -- but it might be fine to have 10-20 >>channels, suitably staggered, where the wait time was 1-2 minutes. > >ah - its that word "channel" that I don't see in the future. Such a dated >concept. Ah. Channels are double-plus-ungood. Call it a stream if it makes you feel happier. Or VDC or whatever. >Instead, you're interested in Alastair Cook. Why should you wait til Monday >at 8:45 every week and then miss it because you were on the phone. I don't recall suggesting that you should. >Hey you have 10 minutes now and would like to catch up with what he said last >Monday (when you were on the phone, remember). So why can't you click in >now and view it ? Your argument seems to be "viewers must be able to view it __NOW__(tm)" and hence we must use unicast for everything in order that everyone can have their whim satisifed at an instants notice (and provide all the bandwidth from source to (multiple) sink(s) to make this possible). My argument is that there's a fair chunk of evidence that says that people would be willing to wait 1, 2, 5, 10, 30, or even 60 seconds for something to start (maybe even longer if it's a sizeable time investment to watch it all and the waiting time can be used productively -- eg, getting that beer out of the fridge before settling down to watch the game), especially given a proper cost/benefit tradeoff ("would you pay 5 times as much to be able to have it start within half a second instead of within 5 seconds"?). And that by adding that relaxing condition it's both quite feasible, and quite benefical, to use multicast at least for the more popular things, especially where the multicast VDCs is set up "on demand" with just a short "setup time" to pull in other potential viewers. Think of it as the difference between everyone just crossing the road when they feel like it, and traffic lights (or at very least waiting for the same gap in the traffic). The big reason that it's beneficial in the popular-to-(re)view situation is that there're more people wanting to view something than there are 5-second, 10-second, 30-second, 60-second, whatever start periods. So you can achieve an N:M reduction in the number of VDC you need originating from the source, for only the price of a bit of management infrastructure (request-a-start-soon), and a slightly slip from the "I wanna watch it now! Now! Now! Mommy, make it go!" instant satisfaction. >Multicast is great for synchronous events like TRADITIONAL tv. I just don't >see that continuing. It's good for things other than traditional TV too. Especially where there's (significantly) more than one person wanting to watch something at the "same" time. Which is a surprisingly common case for "current" events. (Speech replays, sports replays, recent movie releases, etc.) Oh, and I quite agree with Joe's comment that caching at the edge can achieve quite remarkable things in turning "watch now or miss it" into "watch when you feel like it". (And even better, if those with suitable broadcast channels would actually get a clue and use the "down" time to spool out things people might want to watch during the week (eg, "this week's hot new movies"). But "video recorders are bad, we must do everything to defeat the use of video recorders". Furrfu.) Ewen

8 7

RE: [nznog] Crimes Amendment Bill No 6 Now Law
by Stephen Andrew 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

----Original Message---- From: Tony McGregor [mailto:tonym(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2003 2:46 PM To: Stephen Andrew Subject: RE: [nznog] Crimes Amendment Bill No 6 Now Law > Since access means "make use of any of the resources of the computer > system" and "access without authorisation" includes "directly or > indirectly" didn't the internet just become illegal? > > I have no authorisation to access most of the routers and SNMP > gateways my packets went through to get to you. You can probably get around it using the argument that subsection (2) makes any access at all legal as long as you were given permission to do something first; "(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system. "(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access. Presumably this means privelege escalation is legal. By putting up a public web/mail/router service you are implying authorised access for some purpose (viewing a web page, sending an email, making packets go from A to B) thus /any/ use is now legal (as long as it it not dishonest by the terms of the act). -- Andrew This email with any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If it is not intended for you please reply immediately, destroy it and do not copy, disclose or use it in any way.

10 16