- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Spots available on NZITF DDoS training next week in Wellington
by Dean Pemberton 30 Nov '14

30 Nov '14

Hi All, Wellington is going to be the centre of all things Security next week, with Kiwicon happening on the 11th and 12th. In advance of that NZITF have Krassi Tzvetanov (currently at A10 Networks previously at Cisco) visiting that week and running some training while he is here on the 10th December. We don't normally open training up to non-NZITF members, but as this is on DDoS Mitigation and some NZNOG'ers are liable to be in town anyway for Kiwicon, I thought I'd pass the info on. This training will cover different types of DoS attacks that are currently popular and will explain in detail how they work and how in some cases the underlying technology is exploited to produce the desired effect by the attacker. More details available here. http://nzitf.org.nz/pdf/141228-DDoS-Mitigation.pdf Regards, Dean

1 0

Re: [nznog] Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014
by Ray Taylor 30 Nov '14

30 Nov '14

Dean that's a brilliant idea They should definitely be *required* to make a presentation in rotorua and have a q&a session. Ray Taylor Taylor Communications ray(a)ruralkiwi.com Ph 021-483-280 Network status 06-929-9082 Description: header_logo

1 0

FW: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014
by Ray Taylor 29 Nov '14

29 Nov '14

I am assuming this refers to notifications about equipment changes, vendor suppliers etc? It may come as a surprise to these people but most network operators create standards and stick to them! Ray Taylor Taylor Communications <mailto:ray(a)ruralkiwi.com> ray(a)ruralkiwi.com Ph 021-483-280 Network status 06-929-9082 Description: header_logo From: TICSA [mailto:TICSA(a)ncsc.govt.nz] Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014 3:21 p.m. To: TICSA Subject: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014 Dear Network Operator Please find attached a letter to all network operators. This letter shares our surprise at the low number of notifications received from registered network operators to date. We want to reinforce that we are here to support you in meeting your obligations under the TICSA. We thank those network operators who have actively engaged with us under the TICSA since May. Kind regards >From the TICSA Team _____ This electronic message, together with any attachments, contains information that is provided in confidence and may be subject to legal privilege. Any classification markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) accepts no responsibility for changes to this e-mail, or to any attachments, after its transmission from GCSB. Thank you. _____ This email has been filtered by SMX. For more information visit smxemail.com <http://smxemail.com/>

8 8

Re: [nznog] Network for Learning APE Peering
by Peter Lambrechtsen 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

Let's not forget that N4L is run by Spark Digital aka Gen-I and is completely separate infrastructure from the Retail broadband stack. For all intensive purposes they are separate companies. > -------- Original message -------- > From: Tony Wicks <tony(a)wicks.co.nz> > Date: 29/11/2014 8:59 AM (GMT+12:00) > To: "'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz'" <NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> > Subject: Re: [nznog] Network for Learning APE Peering > > > Yes, and it also goes to highlight that there is no reason whatsoever why the rest could not be peered ! > > > >Subject: Re: [nznog] Network for Learning APE Peering > > > > > > >That'll be a royal truck-load of daytime traffic moving from domestic transit links to peering links! > > > > >I think much kudos should go to the N4L team for bringing some 5000+(*) addresses of Spark's IP space into being openly peered at APE. This is a fantastic move! > > > > >Well done guys :)

1 0

Network for Learning APE Peering
by Clayton Hubbard 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

Hi Noggers.. Network for Learning has just completed peering with APE. If you provide services to schools in NZ and have any suboptimal routing, please contact me off-list to investigate. Thanks, *Clayton Hubbard* Senior Engineer, The Network for Learning Ltd D: 09 972 2906 | M: 022 043 0155 | W: http://www.n4l.co.nz A: Suite 306, Geyser Building, 100 Parnell Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052 P: PO Box 37118, Parnell, Auckland 1151 <http://www.n4l.co.nz> <https://twitter.com/@N4LNZ/> <https://www.facebook.com/NetworkForLearning> <https://plus.google.com/104649004276520409744/about> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/the-network-for-learning-ltd-n4l->

3 2

Re: [nznog] FW: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014
by Revel N 25 Nov '14

25 Nov '14

Completely agree. My interpretation of the guidance is the same (i.e. "continuing to use the exact same systems as were decided on and deployed prior to 11 May would not require a notice and replacing dead hardware with the same thing doesn't require this notice either"). As such, I'd be surprised if there had been a large number of submissions from every operator within 6 months. On 26 November 2014 at 12:00, <nznog-request(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> wrote: > Send NZNOG mailing list submissions to > nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nznog-request(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nznog-owner(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NZNOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: FW: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014 > (Alexander Neilson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:12:41 +1300 > From: Alexander Neilson <alexander(a)neilson.net.nz> > To: Dave Mill <dave(a)mill.net.nz> > Cc: "nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz" <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> > Subject: Re: [nznog] FW: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014 > Message-ID: <3B4DF5F6-1C93-4023-AE3E-D5D483D7CC0A(a)neilson.net.nz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > What I think is missing here is where providers have a standard system > they have used with the same hardware before May 11th. > > These were decisions made beforehand, no change to deployment, or not > covered by an area of specified security interest. > > How many people on this list would have changed the manufacturer / type of > equipment used in the NOC / core network that meets the threshold in 6 > months? > > IANAL > > However from my lay reading of the guidance and exemptions continuing to > use the exact same systems as were decided on and deployed prior to 11 May > would not require a notice and replacing dead hardware with the same thing > doesn?t require this notice either. > > So I am not sure that a low number of notifications is an odd thing unless > people had major changes to their core and a short run time to make these > changes. > > Others may want to chime in with their experiences. > > Regards > Alexander > > Alexander Neilson > Neilson Productions Limited > > alexander(a)neilson.net.nz > 021 329 681 > 022 456 2326 > > > On 25/11/2014, at 11:51 am, Dave Mill <dave(a)mill.net.nz> wrote: > > > > I'm actually surprised that our GCSB overlords haven't done something > like this sooner. To me it seems pretty obvious that not all network > providers are using/following the new guidelines. And much better an email > like this one than a proper slap by the NCSC/GCSB. > > > > To explain my logic without giving too much away. > > > > We are a small ISP. We have submitted proposals under this new law. Lets > call our number of proposals X. > > > > At a technical conference recently the GCSB were able to share with us > their rough total number of proposals. That number was also reasonably > obvious from the proposal numbering system the NCSC use. Lets call this > number Y. > > > > Y wasn't that much bigger than X. I'm talking 5 or 6 times bigger from > memory. > > > > We have spent a lot of time and effort in following this new > legislation. I think its only fair that others do also (lets not debate > whether we needed the legislation here). And with the numbers talked about > so far I think its pretty clear that some organisations out there aren't > following this new legislation. > > > > At the very least (based on Ray's comments) most network operators > should be submitting at least 5 - 10 standard builds each IMHO. > > > > Cheers > > Dave > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Ray Taylor <ray(a)ruralkiwi.com <mailto: > ray(a)ruralkiwi.com>> wrote: > > I am assuming this refers to notifications about equipment changes, > vendor suppliers etc? > > > > It may come as a surprise to these people but most network operators > create standards and stick to them! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ray Taylor > > > > Taylor Communications > > > > ray(a)ruralkiwi.com <mailto:ray(a)ruralkiwi.com> > > > > > > Ph 021-483-280 > > > > Network status 06-929-9082 > > > > > > > > <image001.png> > > > > > > > > From: TICSA [mailto:TICSA(a)ncsc.govt.nz <mailto:TICSA(a)ncsc.govt.nz>] > > Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014 3:21 p.m. > > To: TICSA > > Subject: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014 > > > > > > > > Dear Network Operator > > > > > > > > Please find attached a letter to all network operators. This letter > shares our surprise at the low number of notifications received from > registered network operators to date. We want to reinforce that we are here > to support you in meeting your obligations under the TICSA. > > > > > > > > We thank those network operators who have actively engaged with us under > the TICSA since May. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > From the TICSA Team > > > > > > > > > > > > This electronic message, together with any attachments, contains > information that is provided in confidence and may be subject to legal > privilege. Any classification markings must be adhered to. If you are not > the intended recipient, you must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or > use the message in any way. If you have received this message in error, > please notify us immediately by return email and then destroy the original > message. > > The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) accepts no > responsibility for changes to this e-mail, or to any attachments, after its > transmission from GCSB. Thank you. > > > > This email has been filtered by SMX. For more information visit > smxemail.com <http://smxemail.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > > NZNOG mailing list > > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog < > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NZNOG mailing list > > NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog > >

1 0

ntp.net.nz Update
by Josh Simpson 24 Nov '14

24 Nov '14

Hi NZNOG, Time for an update with regards to ntp.net.nz servers. On the morning of Saturday Nov 22, ntp3.ntp.net.nz failed with a similar issue to that of ntp2.ntp.net.nz, this happened just a few weeks short of the new ntp2 go live. Due to this event we have pushed the new ntp2 appliance into service as well as reconfiguring another new appliance that was to be ntp4 as a ntp3 replacement. Both of these went live on Nov 22 at 18:06 hours, along with reverting the DNS ntp2 -> ntp3 redirection changes that were made in the July 14th email. As part of this the IP addresses for ntp2 and ntp3 have changed to the following ntp2.ntp.net.nz: 202.46.178.18 ntp3.ntp.net.nz: 202.46.179.18 ntp2 was unavailable via IPv6 prior to the failure, we have plans to resolve this in the near future. ntp3 is now unavailable via IPv6 due to the short time span of the work on Saturday, we hope to have this resolved in the coming weeks. We will update the list when IPv6 is back up and running. If you had previously used the IP addresses in your configs be sure to update them. We do recommend using the DNS names specified at https://ntp.net.nz to avoid this issue in the future. If you need any further information, please contact us at support(a)nzrs.net.nz Cheers Josh -- Josh Simpson Systems Administrator .nz Registry Services M: +64 21 783 399 P: +64 4 555 0124 GPG: 6516 B4EA 413B CAED 57B5 0956 124C 8AC3 A362 8080 www.nzrs.net.nz

2 1

Network Monitoring VPS in exchange for VPS from us in return.
by daniel＠glovine.com.au 23 Nov '14

23 Nov '14

Hi Noggers, I was wondering if a couple of providers whom wouldn't mind swapping a small VPS for a small VPS from us, in order for us to run a couple of external network monitoring tools from, Looking for providers whom are on MegaPort Sydney IX Looking for providers whom are on NSW IX Looking for providers whom are not on Vocus transit These requirements above are not all necessary to meet, a mix would be handy and dandy :D, Would even consider providers in QLD, Perth, Melbourne Pritty much Australia wide even NZ is a consideration If you wouldn't mind and you are interested please shoot me an off-list reply for further details and discussions TIA Daniel

1 0

FW: FW: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014
by Ray Taylor 23 Nov '14

23 Nov '14

Unclassified Have forwarded to you Ray Taylor Taylor Communications <mailto:ray(a)ruralkiwi.com> ray(a)ruralkiwi.com Ph 021-483-280 Network status 06-929-9082 Description: header_logo From: Rob McDonald [mailto:r(a)l2.co.nz] Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014 8:38 p.m. To: Ray Taylor Subject: Re: [nznog] FW: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014 Hey Ray, Is the text of the actual letter under any confidentiality? If not would you forward it to me? Im quite interested. Could be a gem considering the terse nature of the email. Cheers R On 24/11/2014 8:31 PM, "Ray Taylor" <ray(a)ruralkiwi.com> wrote: I am assuming this refers to notifications about equipment changes, vendor suppliers etc? It may come as a surprise to these people but most network operators create standards and stick to them! Ray Taylor Taylor Communications ray(a)ruralkiwi.com Ph 021-483-280 Network status 06-929-9082 Description: header_logo From: TICSA [mailto:TICSA(a)ncsc.govt.nz] Sent: Monday, 24 November 2014 3:21 p.m. To: TICSA Subject: Letter to Network Operators 24 Nov 2014 Dear Network Operator Please find attached a letter to all network operators. This letter shares our surprise at the low number of notifications received from registered network operators to date. We want to reinforce that we are here to support you in meeting your obligations under the TICSA. We thank those network operators who have actively engaged with us under the TICSA since May. Kind regards >From the TICSA Team _____ This electronic message, together with any attachments, contains information that is provided in confidence and may be subject to legal privilege. Any classification markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) accepts no responsibility for changes to this e-mail, or to any attachments, after its transmission from GCSB. Thank you. _____ This email has been filtered by SMX. For more information visit smxemail.com <http://smxemail.com/> _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

Generating a default route
by Dylan Hall 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

Hi all, I'm curious what other people are doing to generate a default route. The config I'm familiar with lists a set of networks, and if any of them are present then the default route is created. Is that how everyone does it? How are people choosing the set of networks? Do you just use Google and Facebook, after all, if they're present that's pretty much the whole internet? Do you use networks that your transit supplier originates? How many networks do you rely on? If I've lost 50% of my full route table in a fault, am I better off not generating default and letting my multi-homed customers use their backup supplier? Comments welcome on and off list :) Thanks, Dylan

1 0