- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Document posting comments
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

Hi. I include the document in a reasonable format below. I'm concerned about several things in this document. One being, this idea of International and National ISPs and the naming of a set of ISPs as this seems to be included only for commercial reasons and is seriously misleading. >From the document: > It is estimated that the frequency and impact of dampening and > filtering by overseas suppliers will increase over the next few years > to the point where un-aggregated address space cannot be guaranteed to > have reliable connectivity or be routed internationally. This is, at best, misleading. At worst it's simply untrue. There is no reasonable basis on which to make such an estimation. There are other problems, but i'm not entirely sure of the nature of this document, nor it's audience. I suspect Telecom intends to distribute this much wider than just to it's clients. The implied support from NZNOG for all of the statements contained within bothers me. -Craig ---------- Date XXX XXX Customer Company Private Bag YYY City Dear XXX An Appeal to Internet Users in NZ - IP Address Aggregation International ISP's in New Zealand are working closely with APNIC as well as many other ISPs, to consolidate existing IP addresses into internationally aggregated, routable blocks. This initiative is recognised by the New Zealand Network Operators' Group (NZNOG), International Internet numbering authorities such as APNIC and IANA, and ISP's world-wide, as being necessary for the good of the Internet as a whole, and will help ensure reliable connectivity for all New Zealand Internet users. This is an appeal for end-user organisations to get behind the drive to tidy up New Zealand allocated Internet address space. Internet address space is a globally managed resource, administered by the Internet registry system for and on behalf of the Internet community as a whole. The Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) is the regional body that allocates IP addresses for the South Pacific area, including New Zealand. APNIC is one of 3 Regional Internet Registries, which operate under the auspices of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), providing allocation and registration services that support the operation of the Internet globally. APNIC provide addresses to International ISP's such as Telecom, Telstra, IBM, The Internet Group and Clearnet, for sub-allocation to ISPs or customers around the country. Each downstream ISP can then assign the addresses to their end-user customers. APNIC also allocate directly to multi-homed ISPs or companies requiring large amounts of IP address space, such as /19 (32 Class C's) or larger. Address space is allocated to meet documented requirements and when the address space is no longer required, the address space should be returned to the allocating organisation. As such, historical and current Internet registry policy does not recognise the concept of address "ownership" or the buying and selling of address space. All IP address allocations are registered with APNIC and the end-user details on the APNIC database must be updated regularly. There is a responsibility on the International ISP's to ensure this occurs, as it is an important part of the procedure to maintain efficiency in allocations and to obtain additional address space. On behalf of the Internet community within New Zealand, we are asking for your help to allow us to aggregate overseas Internet advertisements as much as possible. If you have addresses from a previous supplier, and now use a different International ISP, it is in your own interest as well as best Internet practises, to return those addresses to the previous supplier. These addresses will be re-distributed to other customers, whilst your current International ISP will provide new IP addresses for your network. It must be stated that this is entirely voluntary, and if individual companies choose not to renumber at this time, for any particular reason, it is entirely their choice. However, it should also be stated that it is estimated that connectivity may be less reliable in the future and extended outages may become more frequent unless your company's addresses are being advertised in aggregatable or large blocks. Reasons for this forecast are detailed in the following Q&A section below. This letter is intended to start an education process on the issues surrounding IP address advertisement on the Internet. It is in every user's "best interest" to keep routing tables as simple as possible by advertising international routes efficiently. To do this, every administrator of registered IP address space has the responsibility to act in the best interests of Internet users, and respect the global issues of route advertisements and portability of IP addresses. I have attached some questions and answers that may help you to understand the background and necessity for the changes. If you have any further questions you should contact your ISP or upstream provider. Additional supporting information can be found at http://www.your-website.yyy.nz Yours sincerely YYY Title Organisation Contact phone number Questions Question: What are the issues? IP addresses, allocated by APNIC to each International ISP, need to be advertised from that particular supplier's gateway, allowing large blocks of addresses to be advertised to the Internet with maximum routing efficiency. This process is called supernetting or route aggregation using Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). Documentation on the need for route aggregation can be found at: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-aggregation-tuto rial-01.txt. International Internet routing can be very complex, leading to large routing tables and router limitations being stretched. Many customers are trying to move the addresses they are using to different gateways, breaking down the maximum block size and causing routing tables to increase in size. The problem is Global in scope and is not just in New Zealand. One way to provide "Internet friendly" advertisements is for provider dependent IP addressing. This means non-portable IP addresses between International ISP's, and is the current APNIC policy for address assignments within NZ. Problems are foreseen due to memory limitations and CPU performance on current backbone routers that are stretched because of the sheer number of routes required to advertise the large number of networks. If customer XXX moves from International ISP A to International ISP B, and continues to use the same IP address range, Int.ISP A must now advertise two smaller blocks, as well as advertising the larger block (supernet), increasing the table size. The route table of Int.ISP B also increases with the advertisement of the new range. Overseas supplier's routers then need to handle both increases (increased advertisements from A and B) on their route table. As additional customers move to and from suppliers, the effect increases, until memory limits on individual routers are reached. When limits are reached on individual routers, filtering can be implemented to ensure the more specific, longer prefix, (or smaller) routes can be dropped to enable the router to carry on operating. Also, when networks have connectivity problems, the overseas supplier can configure dampening to occur. This shuts off access for that network for extended periods, and is typically much longer for small networks than for larger networks. Documentation on route-flap dampening parameters can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-178.html It is estimated that the frequency and impact of dampening and filtering by overseas suppliers will increase over the next few years to the point where un-aggregated address space cannot be guaranteed to have reliable connectivity or be routed internationally. Question: If nothing is done, what is likely to happen? If present trends continue we may not be able to obtain more IP address space for distribution within New Zealand, and we may be unable to route non-contiguous Class C networks internationally. This will negatively impact service for all customers using Provider Independent (PI) address space which are small and not aggregatable. Documentation on the comparison between Provider Independent (PI) and Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-127.html Question: What can we do about it? The only way to minimise New Zealand routes negatively impacting on the Internet in the future is to advertise New Zealand routes in contiguous blocks (supernets). The larger the blocks the better. Because routes emanating from New Zealand are currently fragmented between International ISP's, the routes must be consolidated (aggregated) into contiguous blocks. To achieve this, we need to work together to convert current network address schemes into PA address space. Each IP address allocation and assignment must be provided as non-portable, and existing IP address assignments should be renumbered into the aggregated blocks. The Internet is a self regulated organism and as such is driven entirely by it's end-users. To ensure reliable connectivity in the future for all users, some changes may have to take place from time to time as the Internet develops and matures. Some of these changes may be harder for certain user's than for others to implement, but we would ask for your support in doing what will benefit the vast majority of users. Question: Does this affect me? This appeal may affect you if your network uses IP address space supplied by someone other than your current International ISP, and will affect all New Zealand organisations by the ongoing allocation of IP addresses. We would request that all IP addresses from previous International ISP's should be returned to that supplier, or directly to APNIC. Your current supplier will work with you to supply you with the equivalent address space (in a contiguous block). Your company may have to look at renumbering their network. Renumbering has no effect on Domain Names or Email addresses other than behind the scenes configuration, so business cards and stationery should not be affected. Documentation covering the need to renumber can be found at: http://sunsite.hr/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc1900.txt and http://sunsite.hr/cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2008.txt Question: What are my options if my company has to renumber? There are many options available, but some may not be viable for your companies requirements. We hope you will spend some time researching the pro's and con's of each option, and act in the best interests of New Zealand Internet users, and in the spirit of global Internet best practises. The various options include: 1. Implement a firewall for your company. This means you can keep the numbering scheme you are using and not have to renumber. All access to the network can be through a firewall, for enhanced security, and you will only need a handful (at the most) of new registered IP addresses. The old registered IP addresses will be able to be returned to the original supplier. The network will effectively be on a private numbering scheme, interfacing with the Internet registered addressing scheme by means of a network address translation (NAT) mechanism. The benefit of this method is independence from supplier's numbers (apart from the external firewall addresses) which means swapping suppliers in the future will not impact you nearly as much. NAT technology is improving all the time and allowing more flexibility than in earlier versions. 2. Apply NAT functionality or Web-proxy functionality without a firewall. This gives you Internet access without having to renumber your existing network. You may want to review your network security. 3. If you use dynamic IP allocation techniques such as DHCP for your network, the amount of work required to renumber is greatly reduced. Reconfiguring your DHCP server and rebooting network devices will renumber your devices automatically. You may still require several new static IP addresses for devices which support DHCP technology i.e. for devices such as nameservers on production networks you may still require several new static IP addresses. 4. Unfortunately, if you have static IP addressing throughout your network, and your network does not easily support either NAT or DHCP reconfiguration, you may have to manually renumber your network. 5. If your company is using large amounts of IP address space, such as /19 (32 Class Cs) or larger, you can approach APNIC directly, requesting your own provider independent IP address block. Question: Who is driving the changes? * International Internet numbering authorities such as IANA, APNIC, RIPE and ARIN recommend "Best Internet Practises" be maintained by all suppliers of Internet services. * Within New Zealand, International ISP's such as Telecom, Telstra, Clear, The Internet Group, and IBM are supporting the initiative, along with national ISP's, all of whom sub-allocate IP addresses under APNIC policy. * Internet user's world-wide benefit by New Zealand successfully implementing these changes. There does need to be a combined and rational approach to the problem, so International ISP's, national ISP's and end-users will need to work closely and communicate effectively to co-ordinate the changes as they take place. Question: Whom can I contact to get more information? Your ISP or upstream Internet Service Provider should be able to help with any questions regarding renumbering. Your International ISP will also be able to help you by supplying new contiguous IP address blocks. Additional supporting information can be found at http://www.netgate.net.nz, which has references to the latest APNIC RFC's and policy documentation regarding IP address allocations (such as RFC 2050). Contact can also be made directly with APNIC at http://www.apnic.net for IP address allocation request forms and further information. --------- 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: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Docume nt posting comments
by Warwick GLENDENNING 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

Hi As a user of this list I am getting tired of these remarks about the posting of documents in certain formats. If you have a problem with a message that has been posted please direct it to the person concerned, NOT the list so the author can fix it instead of lambasting the author on this list, otherwise your comments serve no useful purpose. Thanks Warwick Glendenning Network Manager - University of Waikato -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [mailto:asjl(a)netlink.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 9 December 1998 04:29 To: Brett Telfer Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation Brett Telfer wrote: > > Hi all, > > Following on from the meeting at Cisco on the 27th Nov, I have attached > an updated letter which includes suggested input from APNIC. > > This document (or at least the information it contains) can hopefully be > distributed around all end-users as the start of an educational > programme aimed at raising peoples awareness of current IP addressing > issues. > > I have tried to make it as "neutral" as possible, but there may be pieces of > "Telecom centric nature" that slipped past, so if anyone has issues with > these please delete, cut and paste, bastardise etc as necessary. > Apologies also for any inaccuracies that may be present. > Brett, It looks like stuff of a 'Microsoft centric nature' has slipped past. Please can we have this is a non proprietary format? andy -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- 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

6 5

RE: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Docume nt posting comments
by Warwick GLENDENNING 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

I will second that Warwick -----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley(a)clear.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 10 December 1998 09:48 To: Dean Pemberton; Andy Linton; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Cc: jabley(a)clear.co.nz Subject: Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Document posting comments On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 07:29:14AM +1100, Dean Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 07:13:56AM +0000, Andy Linton wrote: > > I'm happy to leave this alone IFF we all agree that we desist from > > posting Word etc docs. > > I move that we make this an addition (suitable worded) to the charter of the > NZNOG list. How about: + Postings to the list should be in ASCII or MIME encoded as text/plain. No attachments of any kind should be sent to the list. If it is required to present a document, a suitable URL for the document may be referred to. For documents that are of general interest, proprietary file formats are discouraged. and also + Breaches in list etiquette (e.g. including attachments) should be dealt with privately with the offending list user, and should not involve complaints being sent to the list. > Anyone second that? Me too :) --------- 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

1 0

RE: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation - Docume nt posting comments
by Robert Gray 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

Andy Linton wrote: >I'm happy to leave this alone IFF we all agree that we desist from >posting Word etc docs. Word docs suit me fine, particularly for sending out a mail shot to our customers. HTML with or without is useless for this purpose. Dean Pemberton wrote >I move that we make this an addition (suitable worded) to the charter of the >NZNOG list. May I suggest that an amendment to Dean's motion that we request a text version be posted as well as _any_ proprietary format (those with Word will find it easy to save as text). This should satisfy all parties and make it easy for those who have enough to do already. Personally however I would be much happier if even half as much attention was given to the substance rather than the form but then I'm old fashioned like that. BTW I'd like to thank Brett for doing the work and posting something we can use, in one format or another. Robert Gray Clearview Communications, Auckland New Zealand bobg(a)clearview.co.nz http://www.clearview.co.nz/ Phone DDI +64 9 529 5704, Fax +64 9 529 5702, Mob +64 25 971 860 --------- 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: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggre gation
by Frank March 09 Dec '98

09 Dec '98

I normally apologise for adding to gratutous email polution but not this time. I had nothing to do with any posting on this issue. I gave clear (and I believe sufficient) reasons for not interfering with the format of a document belonging to someone else when I posted on an entirely separate issue I though to be of importance to the commercial use of the New Zealand Internet. I take very strong personal exception to the tone of the communication from Chris Wedgewood. Frank March Specialist Advisor IT Policy Group, Ministry of Commerce, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand Telephone: +64 4 474 2908; Fax: +64 4 473 7010 > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Wedgwood [SMTP:chris(a)cybernet.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 6:31 PM > To: Andy Linton > Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address > aggregation > > On Tue, Dec 08, 1998 at 04:29:11PM +0000, Andy Linton wrote: > > > Let's try an analogy here. It looks like the Nazis are winning, let's > > all join the local fascist party, collaborate and learn German. > > > > Me, I prefer to remain part of the resistance. (;-) > > Umm... I wasn't clear, hence you missed my point. > > I'm not saying you _should_ use anything at all to view .doc files (I > hate 'em myself too), I was just suggesting a mechanism for doing so > if you wanted too. > > Anyhow, I'm none to happy about them myself (in theory I can read > them with various tools, but I choose not to because its all too much > effort) and if Frank March or indeed anyone else doesn't feel like > converting these files to a more appropriate format -- could the > please not post the whole fu^H^Hthing (over 100k) to the mailing > list? > --------- 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: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation (Translated to something usefull)
by Dean Pemberton 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 04:53:52PM +1200, Michael Newbery wrote: > > > Yeah, yeah, I know, it's machine generated, and the orignal document should have been marked up right, but hey! I can nitpick too. > Oh I'm sorry Micheal, I always read my html documents in lynx. It looks fine to me =) Dean -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton Ph: +61-3-9656-7000 Regional Technical Specialist Asia-Pacific Fx: +61-3-9656-7003 Ascend Communications, Inc Mb: +61-419-117-321 Lvl 38, ANZ Tower, 55 Collins St Melbourne,Australia mailto:deanp(a)ascend.com.au -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation
by brett.telfer＠telecom.co.nz 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

Hi all, Following on from the meeting at Cisco on the 27th Nov, I have attached an updated letter which includes suggested input from APNIC. This document (or at least the information it contains) can hopefully be distributed around all end-users as the start of an educational programme aimed at raising peoples awareness of current IP addressing issues. I have tried to make it as "neutral" as possible, but there may be pieces of "Telecom centric nature" that slipped past, so if anyone has issues with these please delete, cut and paste, bastardise etc as necessary. Apologies also for any inaccuracies that may be present. >From the meeting I believe everyone agreed information should be disseminated amongst end-users as quickly as possible, so that they can make informed decisions and have real input themselves. Hopefully everyone can send this (or something like this) out as a start...?? If there is merit in having parties signing a combined document to show support and good faith then we can go down that path, however I think we should just get on with it and let people know what issues we are facing. Regards BT

6 6

Re: Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation (Translated to something usefull)
by Michael Newbery 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

Dean wrote: >Here is the HTML version of this document. I wish people would learn to >produce material in some form that is more architecture independant. and then he produced <STYLE>  </STYLE> Paf, whack, smite. Such a standard font RotisSanSerif it is. The document then goes on </HEAD> <BODY> Date Thump, bash, crunch. Having gone to the trouble of using styles, you then negate it to a large extent by comitting the sin of . Yeah, yeah, I know, it's machine generated, and the orignal document should have been marked up right, but hey! I can nitpick too. :-) -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-939 5102 Mobile:021-642 957 Fax:+64-4-939 5100 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Appeal to end-users regarding IP address aggregation (Translated to something usefull)
by Dean Pemberton 08 Dec '98

08 Dec '98

Here is the HTML version of this document. I wish people would learn to produce material in some form that is more architecture independant. Dean -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton Ph: +61-3-9656-7000 Regional Technical Specialist Asia-Pacific Fx: +61-3-9656-7003 Ascend Communications, Inc Mb: +61-419-117-321 Lvl 38, ANZ Tower, 55 Collins St Melbourne,Australia mailto:deanp(a)ascend.com.au -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Minutes, NZNOG meeting, 27-11-98
by Roger De Salis 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Ladies and Gentlemen, as promised, a set of minutes from the NZNOG meeting last Friday, 27th November 1998. ----------------------------------------------------------- Present Bob Grey - Clearview Peter Mott - 2Day Internet Craig Anderson - Iprolink Joe Abley - Clear Chris Wedgewood - Man about town Rowan Smith - ICONZ Tony Wicks - ICONZ Brett Telfer - Telecom Netgate Roger De Salis - Cisco/ISOCNZ Andy Linton - Netlink Don Stokes - Daedalus Consulting Subject: How to progress the NZ IP address space, to make administration and address exceptions easier, not more difficult to manage in the future. What to do about the 4 address blocks.. namely 202.27.0.0 - 202.27.255.255 202.36.0.0 - 202.37.255.255 202.49.0.0 - 202.49.255.255 202.50.0.0 - 202.50.255.255 203.96.0.0 - 203.97.255.255 The 203.96.0.0 - 203.97.255.255 block is not in question. This was delegated to NZNIC, not NZGATE, and has been well-delegated since (to Netlink, CLEAR, Iprolink, Netway, Xtra and many others. There are very few (if any) networks delegated to end users within this block. Issues arising 1/ Route Flapping, or possible administrative decision not to re-advertise routes less than /19 by US connection providers. (This is only a suggestion at this stage...) 2/ Requirement for Provider independent address space 3/ Aquisition of additional address space, by those suppliers in NZ requiring it. 4/ Mechanism of handing back address's that are no longer required or in use. 5/ An unequivocal statement that IP address space issues not be used as a commercial lever by Sales staff or other interested parties. It should be noted that all address bocks of /19 or larger are clearly large enough to be either Provider independent or Provider dependent, according to agreed terms. However, the ability to acquire a /19 block implies a scale of operations that may not suit all NZ operators. Address blocks of /25 or smaller are clearly not provider independent, for the purposes of Internet carriage in NZ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Discussion followed about "what to do about the 4 blocks" Dominant provider within each block to advertise. Use APNIC recording mechanism to update/improve information quality, rather than create a separate recording mechanism, and attempt to keep them in sync. Discussion followed about possible creation of an NZNIC, however this was felt to be far to great a step, considering the nature of the problem. It was though that another organisation charged with "administering" IP address space was far to complex compared with the current issues open for discussion. Technical Problems arising from the current IP address regime:- 1/ Multi-homing 2/ Provider independent address space 3/ ISP not large enough to aquire a routeable block. These are more regional registry issues, rather than NZGATE issues, IMHO. The key technical issue at present is that it results in a very large number of long-prefix routes to be advertised all over the place, which (a) may put users in jeopardy in the future, (b) may put them in some jeopardy now due to higher flap penalties, and (c) are an administrative headache. There were three possible solutions suggested: 1. Telecom's proposal - as described in the "letter" from Telecom, describing one solution aggregating into 4 supernets. 2. Joe Abley's proposal - as documented 3. Andy's proposal - collapse the 4 NZGATE ranges into /19 (or larger) supernets, which will be advertised by the dominant provider in each range. The meeting felt that the third option has the most promise and was worth exploring further. The meeting gratefully received contributions from Joe Abley, a draft working paper on the NZGate Delegations. Andy Linton, a roughly correlated list of affected address's and customer names, within the 5 blocks. The following actions were agreed:- Education letter to Customers concerning "Internet Routing Best Practice" "Falling Utilisation due to increasing use of Firewalls" 2/ Document the customers in the 4 blocks Document the usage of the 4 blocks Include all address's, and ignore any issues of ownership. Use APNIC Database for Information Quality Improvement. My Thanks to all participants. Meeting closed at 2pm. -- \_ Roger De Salis Cisco Systems NZ Ltd </' +64 25 481 452 L3, 117 Customhouse Qy /) +64 4 473 4912 Wellington, New Zealand (/ roger(a)desalis.gen.nz rdesalis(a)cisco.com ` --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0