- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: more than 4 nameservers for a domain
by Mark Davies 04 Jun '00

04 Jun '00

From: Craig Anderson <craig(a)abstract.co.nz> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:31:46 +1200 (NZT) > NSI allows up to 13 nameservers. Also you have to wonder if the web interface only allows 4 nameservers and the mail template or approved agent or whatever allows 6 why does the whois output always list 10 (most of which, obviously, are empty) mark --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Re: more than 4 nameservers for a domain
by Craig Anderson 03 Jun '00

03 Jun '00

Hi. > Consider also, for TLDs (and popular domains which have many > subdomains) where many many requests are made, you want many many > name-servers as many (most?) caching name-servers will work out which > name-servers respond the quickest and bias requests towards them. NSI allows up to 13 nameservers. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

more than 4 nameservers for a domain
by Joe Abley 03 Jun '00

03 Jun '00

The Domainz web interface only lets you specify four authoritative nameservers for a domain; the e-mail interface lets you specify six. The e-mail interface is only available to agentstrars. POB has confirmed that this is the intended design, and is not a bug. Can anybody confirm what happens if a domain has six nameservers loaded by an agentstrar using the e-mail template, and is subsequently edited by the nameholder using the web interface? Are all six nameservers preserved? Joe --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

5 6

Outcome of the ICAIS Consultation and the APEC TELMIN4 Conference (sorry, but its long)
by Frank March 01 Jun '00

01 Jun '00

Report to NZNOG and ISOCNZ-Members This is a report back to these lists on the position taken by New Zealand at the APEC TELMIN conference in Cancun and outcomes from the conference. But first: as previously noted, the feedback from members of these lists has been very helpful in informing a NZ Government view. However, as a member of the NZNOG list has pointed out to me, despite the suitability for this type of discussion over a beer, the matters are somewhat off-topic for NZNOG. The Ministry of Economic Development wishes to undertake further consultation leading up to an ITU-T meeting and the next APEC TEL meeting in September. I will continue to send consultation material to the isocnz-members list. Subscribers to the NZNOG list who wish to continue to be involved should email me direct. I will assume that anyone responding to the previous round will wish to continue to be involved (unless you tell me otherwise ;) There has been some publicity from Australia and the US about the outcome of this conference which may have created some confusion as they tend to express alternative views on the outcome achieved. I have appended below a copy of a media release from the Acting Minister of Communications which gives the NZ perspective on the outcome. It should be apparent that the matter is not going to just fade away and we believe that the NZ government will need to continue to be actively engaged in the debate. The stance adopted by NZ at Cancun was as follows: <quote> (i) in principle, the costs of international circuits should be shared in proportion to the benefits. We are, however, unsure of the best way of assessing those benefits, and of whether there is a more efficient way of developing cost-sharing arrangements than commercial negotiations between interested parties, ie whether the benefits of government interventions to mandate particular cost-sharing formulae would exceed transaction and other costs; (ii) recommendations on specific international charging arrangements for Internet services are premature; (iii) in any case, recommendations in this area are more properly a matter for the ITU, not APEC. As the World Telecommunications Standardisation Conference is in October 2000, this would give more time for the consideration of issues such as the implications of voice over Internet; (iv) APEC principles could be a useful means of helping to clarify thinking on the issue, particularly if they emphasise the role of the private sector. We see the draft recommendations in the report as a useful basis for consideration; (v) recommendations for further TEL work are appropriate; and (vi) New Zealand will be in a better position to have considered the issue more fully by the time of the ITU World Telecommunications Standardisation Conference in October. </quote> Note that the position reflects economic orthodoxy ("in principle, the costs of international circuits should be shared in proportion to the benefits") but recognises the difficulty of achieving this. This is a fair summary of the feedback received, which covered both points. The recognition of the ITU's role in the issue was based on further feedback from the industry and reflects work done by a NZ private sector representative in that forum as well as recognition that if any regulatory regime were to be formulated promulgation would have to be through the ITU as APEC does not have this function and, in any case, it is not just an issue for APEC economies. The output documents from the Cancun meeting are something of a compromise reflecting the difficulty in finding positions that the two 'sides' could agree to. It was agreed that 'equitable cost sharing' did not necessarily mean 50/50 and it was acknowledged that the benefits arising from Internet traffic are hard to determine. The outcome from Cancun was as follows: <quote> Ministers also adopt the International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services attached as Annex B. Ministers also reaffirm the importance of cost-sharing or other mutually-beneficial arrangements for the region as a whole. </quote> In the Annex B, the key paragraph reads as follows: <quote> Internet charging arrangements between providers of network services should be commercially negotiated and, among other issues, reflect: a) the contribution of each network to the communications; b) the use by each party of the interconnected network resources; and c) the end to end costs of international transport link capacity. </quote> A longer statement was contained in the Programme of Action agreed by Ministers for the Telecommunications Working Group for the next 2 year period. The NZ suggestion that the matter might be more appropriately one for the ITU was not picked up. The only specific outcome is a direction for the Telecommunications Working Group to report back to the next ministerial meeting in China in 2 years time. By that stage, the ITU (which is a treaty-making body) will also have considered recommendations on the topic and the Internet itself will no doubt have continued its rapid expansion. Ministerial Press Statement: <quote> The Acting Minister of Communications Trevor Mallard has welcomed the progress made by APEC Ministers on international internet charging arrangements. The APEC Ministers met in Cancun, Mexico last week. Trevor Mallard said a reasonable compromise has been reached between the strongly held views of the US and Canada on one side, and the other APEC economies led by Singapore and Australia. "At the heart of the issue is a claim of unfair international internet charging," he said. "Many APEC economies believe those international charging arrangements are unfair because in relation to traffic exchanged with the US, the non-US party has to meet the costs of the international link in both directions. "New Zealand's position at the meeting was that, as a general economic principle, the costs of international internet circuits should be shared in proportion to the benefits to the parties. "Having said that it is difficult to assess the benefits from internet traffic, and we need to be sure that gains from the benefits of any government interventions in commercial negotiations would exceed the costs." "The International Telecommunication Union (a UN body which has treaty-making powers) is considering recommendations on this matter at its World Telecommunication Standardisation Assembly in September. "The Cancun Declaration issued by APEC Ministers at the end of the Mexico meeting reaffirmed the importance of cost-sharing or other mutually beneficial arrangements for the APEC region as a whole. "The principles adopted by Ministers, and the future work programme approved for the APEC Telecommunications Working Group, emphasise the importance of commercial negotiation and cost sharing". "It is too early to tell how the Declaration will impact on commercial negotiations, as APEC is not a treaty-making body, but this is still a valuable step in the right direction," Trevor Mallard said. New Zealand will continue to participate in the APEC Telecommunications Working Group. The group will continue to discuss international developments relating to the internet and report back to the next ministerial meeting in two year's time. </quote> Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: NZ whois server
by Michael Newbery 31 May '00

31 May '00

On the 'liberal in what you accept' precept, I'd say that the server should either respond with the info, followed by somthing like % NOTE: Your whois client does not conform to the standard. % It failed to terminate the query string properly or even just provide the carp message and decline to provide the information, which is less helpful but more of an incentive to fix the broken client. In other words, if we want to throw rocks at the server, the most we can really complain about is that it failed silently when could have been a little more voluble. I'm no fan of 'liberal in what you accept'='I am a doormat, abuse me as you will, I will add code to work around your mistakes' for three reasons. 1. If the client writer doesn't know there is a problem, they can't fix it. 2. The server suffers code bloat. 3. When second-guessing what the client actually meant, it may well get it wrong (doesn't apply this time). However, if they are going to open the code to make the change you suggest though, the formating of the output could use some work. IMHO it's the ugliest whois server output I've ever seen, not to mention the most verbose. But as Don says, there are other things that need fixing more. -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile:021-642 957 Fax:+64-4-939 5100 >>> Don Stokes <don(a)daedalus.co.nz> - 30/5/00 6:38 PM >>> "Robert Gray" <bob(a)r-gray.com> wrote: >It's not BUFFOONZ but RIPE who's out of step with the rest of the world. I >should have known ;) Well, in this case, the RFCs are on Domainz's side, not RIPE's. Not to mention every other whois client on the planet which sends CRLF at the ends of their queries, as required by reputable network protocols the world over. Andy Linton <asjl(a)netlink.net.nz> writes: >"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" Indeed, hence the suggestion that it be made to terminate on any control character. But I suspect that there are higher priorities at the moment than making the whois server talk to non-compliant clients. (It's not my code.) -- don --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

8 13

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group
by Donald Neal 31 May '00

31 May '00

The New Zealand Network Operators' Group The New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG) has no king, president or formal membership. At present it consists of the subscribers to this mailing list, which anyone is free to join. At last count the list had just under 150 subscribers, with the count growing by around five each month. The NZNOG mailing list is provided through a server at The University of Waikato, and is administered by an employee of Telecom NZ Ltd. Neither of these organisations (nor the administrator) is responsible for its content. NZNOG Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy The NZNOG mailing list exists to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of implementation issues that require cooperation among New Zealand network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, users of the list are asked to respect the following guidelines. 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues. 2. Discussion related to meetings of network service providers is appropriate. 3. Discussion unrelated to these topics is not appropriate. 4. Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 5. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are unacceptable. 6. Blatant product or service marketing is unacceptable. 7. Postings of a political, philosophical or legal nature are discouraged. 8. Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. Attachments should not be sent to the list. To present a document, a suitable URL may be referred to. For documents of general interest, the use of proprietary file formats is discouraged. 9. Breaches of list etiquette should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not result in complaints being sent to the list. Mailing List Archives A full archive is available at http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/nznog/ To search the archive, see http://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/search.html (and remember to select nznog). Subscribing to the List To subscribe to the NZNOG list, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz, where the body of the message reads subscribe nznog There are at present no restrictions on who may subscribe to the list, or even on who may post to the list. Digest Mailing List If you don't wish to receive postings as they are sent, you can instead subscribe to the nznog-digest mailiing list, on which all postings are sent out in a single "digest" every couple of days. Other Activities NZNOG does not at present have other regular activities than this mailing list, though some Auckland subscribers have been known to meet over beer. Some subscribers are likely to attend the Uniforum NZ 2000 conference in Hamilton in early October. Donald Neal NZNOG Mailing List Owner/Administrator/Muggins --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: ISOCNZ - Invitation to Summit 2000
by Pete 30 May '00

30 May '00

Well that was jolly nice of ISOCNZ to give me all of your addresses so I can sell them to a mass-marketing spam company!! On Wed, 31 May 2000 exec.assist(a)isocnz.org.nz wrote: >Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:21:34 +1200 >From: exec.assist(a)isocnz.org.nz >To: <Incredibly long list of personal e-mail addresses clipped> >Cc: exe.dir(a)isocnz.org.nz, exec.assist(a)isocnz.org.nz >Subject: ISOCNZ - Invitation to Summit 2000 >Parts/Attachments: > 1 Shown ~75 lines Text (charset: ISO-8859-1), "Mail message body" > 2 Shown 153 lines Text, "Text from file 'Agenda.html'" >---------------------------------------- They obviously know how to use a "cc" field, why doesn't someone tell them how to use "bcc" !!! Rgds, Pete --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

NZ whois server
by Andy Linton 29 May '00

29 May '00

As a NZ domain holder, I am unimpressed by the apparent inability of the Council of ISOCNZ to require Domainz to carry out the policies it is supposed to and I am also unimpressed by the failure of the Board of Domainz in ensuring that the policies of ISOCNZ are carried out. I and a number of others have requested the introduction of a whois server that allows access to the data on the ISOCNZ NZ Registry that is operated on the Society's behalf by their operating company Domainz. This is consistent with the requirement stated in the Council's policy on New Zealand's Domain Name Structure. In that document (http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~hine/ISOCNZ/DNS/DNpolicy-8-97.html#SecondLevel) the section "Use of Information Gathered" the first paragraph says: 'Information is gathered in order to provide a public name listing service in line with other Internet domain name registry services world-wide.' Other registry services world-wide implement a whois service as well as a web-based service as a matter of course. I understand that the Council of the Society has instructed Domainz to implement such a server. Can you give an indication of when this service will be available? I also note that a name for this service is listed in the DNS. It is confusing to have this name there and then not have a service running. The details are below. whois.domainz.net.nz -> 202.46.160.18 -> www-wlg.domainz.net.nz Can you ensure that either the service that this host name purports to implement is commenced or that this host name is removed? --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 5

Re: NZ whois server
by Andy Linton 29 May '00

29 May '00

At 05:49 PM 5/30/00 +1200, you wrote: >Andy Linton <asjl(a)netlink.net.nz> wrote: > >My apologies! I'm using the RIPE whois client and it never returns when > >I type: > > > >whois -h whois.domainz.net.nz lionra.net.nz > > > >although it's quite able to talk to other whois servers around the > >planet. > >OK, I was kinda intrigued about this one. So I downloaded the RIPE stuff >and had a play. > >It seems that the RIPE whois terminates its query with a single LF, >not CRLF as as the Domainz server is expecting. From tcpdump: > >17:02:01.058956 toyunix.zl2tnm.gen.nz.62311 > >www-wlg.domainz.net.nz.whois: P 1: >16(15) ack 1 win 17520 > 4500 0037 d189 0000 4006 7d4c c0a8 0102 > ca2e a012 f367 002b 3d2b 3c24 0827 44dd > 5018 4470 cec9 0000 6461 6564 616c 7573 > 2e63 6f2e 6e7a 0a > >(for those who don't read hex, that's <ip-header> <tcp header> >"daedalus.co.nz\n" No "\r". I suspect the Domainz server is waiting >for the CR not the LF. >I'm amazed. I didn't think it was possible to screw up the whois >protocol, much less have an outfit like RIPE do it. From RFC 954: Agreed. That's why I was so surprised when it didn't work and why I didn't check when I should have. If we're talking RFCs - RFC 1123 (:-) 1.2.2 Robustness Principle At every layer of the protocols, there is a general rule whose application can lead to enormous benefits in robustness and interoperability: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" Software should be written to deal with every conceivable error, no matter how unlikely; sooner or later a packet will come in with that particular combination of errors and attributes, and unless the software is prepared, chaos can ensue. In general, it is best to assume that the network is filled with malevolent entities that will send in packets designed to have the worst possible effect. This assumption will lead to suitable protective design, although the most serious problems in the Internet have been caused by unenvisaged mechanisms triggered by low-probability events; mere human malice would never have taken so devious a course! Thanks for sorting this out, by the way! --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

FW: [apnic-announce] Maintenance Announcement: June 3rd 8:00 - 12:00 UTC+10
by jabley＠automagic.org 29 May '00

29 May '00

----Original Message----- From: Paul Gampe <paulg(a)apnic.net> To: apnic-announce(a)lists.apnic.net Cc: Subject: [apnic-announce] Maintenance Announcement: June 3rd 8:00 - 12:00 UTC+10 Reply-To: apnic-talk(a)apnic.net Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 1:23 PM [Note "reply-to:" field] Dear APNIC Member, APNIC will be performing an operating system maintenance on the primary whois server, whois.apnic.net during the Saturday June 3rd maintenance window between 8:00 - 12:00 UTC+10. The following services will be affected for periods of at most 15 minutes during the maintenance window: whois, dns, www.apnic.net and mailing lists. Both dns and email services will be provided by our secondary servers during this time. Should you have any questions regarding this announcement please e-mail: technical(a)apnic.net. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience that this may cause. Regards, Paul Gampe -- _______________________________________________________________ For PGP Key ID B49E3514, mailto:paulg(a)apnic.net send mail with Subject: pgp-key-request phoneto:+61-7-3367-0490 Paul Gampe - Technical Manager - APNIC faxto:+61-7-3367-0482 * APNIC-ANNOUNCE: Announcements concerning APNIC * * To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" to apnic-announce-request(a)apnic.net *

1 0