- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

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 08 Dec '98

08 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

Re: Question
by Roger De Salis 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Gentlefolk, I did indeed circulate the mintues of that meeting to all the attendees, asking for errors and omissions. That was done on Thursday 3rd Dec. No direct responses about the content, although I'm in dialogue with jabley about additions. I'll post the minutes this afternoon (after I've got Joe's response today). Rgds Roger De Salis Frank March wrote: > > Hello James: > > I am copying your query and this response to Roger De Salis, a member of the > Council of ISOCNZ who a week ago convened a meeting of 15 or so fairly key > New Zealand ISPs to sort out some of the issues relating to the IP numbering > space inherited through what was at one time the sole New Zealand portal to > the Internet through a gateway operated by Waikato University. Roger is a > member of the ISOCNZ Council and our organisation has undertaken to > cooperate with the ISPs in New Zealand to assist in working through some of > the issues surrounding historical allocations of IP number space. > > The good news is that the major and minor ISPs in New Zealand are able and > willing to work on this issue jointly. The group has yet to publish any > notes coming out of the meeting but Roger will be able to comment on the > present situation. (please Roger!) > > Frank March > Secretary, ISOCNZ > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Fischer [SMTP:jfischer(a)supercollider.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:21 AM > > To: secretary(a)isocnz.org.nz > > Subject: Question > > > > Sirs: > > > > I recently read the following news snippet, and need > > to find out more about this issue. > > > > Does you group have any involvement in this? > > If so, is there any publicly-available information > > on the issue? > > > > "Net engineers move to clear up IP confusion > > NEW ZEALAND's Internet engineers are moving to > > prevent companies providing Internet services > > trying to get a competitive edge by exploiting > > confusion over Internet addressing." > > > > Our group has extensive distributed networks, supported > > by different bandwidth suppliers. Needless to say, > > the IP address situation, and the de-facto "hostage" > > situation created by the use of non-relocatable address > > blocks has executives "concerned". > > > > I have been charged with "fixing" the mess. > > > > Any information you could offer on your work in this area > > would be a big help. (Yes, your page "ipnums" is a well > > written description, but I am trying to figure out how > > one might best deal with the situation over the short term > > [pre IPv6]) given a need to route 6 to 8 class C blocks to > > each site, while still having each site's "feed" come from > > a wholesale provider. > > > > -- \_ 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

2 1

FW: organisational committee for the iibf seminar, march 1999
by Frank March 07 Dec '98

07 Dec '98

Dear Folks As I have had only one positive reply so far to my previous message asking for interest in the APEC TEL work on international Internet bandwidth pricing issues, I am forwarding this to the same circulation list as before. I will leave it to the end of this week before I set up a special mailing list and I will then forward information selectively. I have offered to fax copies of the papers I circulated previously in Word formats but I am not in a position to alter the originals for transmission as text as requested by various people. I am grateful to Brendan Black [ratfink(a)xtra.co.nz] for offering to assist with those people apparently lacking either Word or a fax machine by converting to html. Please note however, that this information, while not particularly confidential, does belong to the APEC TEL people and should not be placed into a public domain. Please note that TEL19 will take place in Japan in March 1999 and AFAIK anyone can attend APEC TEL meetings. The principal issue for the IIBF study is the cost of international Internet bandwidth outside North America and some of Europe because of the need to meet the total cost of data circuits from the 'periphery' instead of 'zero balancing' as is normal practice with international telephone calls. 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: valerie(a)tas.gov.sg [SMTP:valerie(a)tas.gov.sg] > Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 8:47 PM > To: apec-iibf(a)external.cisco.com > Subject: organisational committee for the iibf seminar, march 1999 > > > > > 07/12/98 15:47 > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > Valerie D COSTA(a)TAS.GOV.SG > 07/12/98 15:47 > 07/12/98 15:47 > > Dear Colleagues, > > As was discussed at previous IIBF Task Force Meetings during TEL18 > and from the comments received thus far, there seems to be broad > agreement that information seminars should be organised along the > major milestones of the IIBF Study, to give us the opportunity to > examine the state of play for the Study, to continue dialogue among > all interested participants and to update our knowledge and > understanding of this complex topic. > > > The first of the series of seminars is scheduled for one day on the > fringes of TEL19. Japan will be in touch with me to indicate which > date will be assigned to us. I am copying Yamada-san on this e-mail. > > I think now would be a good time to start preparations for the > seminar. I am writing to solicit interest in serving on an > organisational committee to prepare the programme, format and agenda > for the seminar and to start the search for good speakers from a > wide > range of interest groups. The organisational committee will work > solely by electronic means. > > Could I ask that you send me an email by Friday, 11 December 98, > copied to all Task Force members, to indicate your interest in > serving on this committee? Once the committee is formed and to get > the ball rolling, I will circulate a draft agenda to this committee > on 15 December 98 for comments and suggestions. > > Which brings me then to the issue of sponsorship! In its comments on > the 1st draft of the TOR, the US suggested that corporate > sponsorship > be sought for the information seminars. This would enable us to use > the funds raised thus far (US$100,000 from Singapore) to pay for the > actual conduct of the Study. I would appreciate it if you could > raise > this idea with interested organisations/companies within your > economies to look for potential sponsors. I'd suggest we work > tentatively with a proposed budget of about US$20, 000? Let me know > if this sum is feasible. > > If you are not interested to serve on the organisational committee > but nonetheless have ideas for good speakers or industry experts to > participate in the seminar, I'd welcome those suggestions too. > Again, > kindly copy your suggestions to all IIBF Task Force members until > the > organisational committee is formed. > > Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you by 11 December 98 > > Regards > > Valerie > --------- 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: LONG: Industry Consultation on APEC study of "Compatible and
by Robert Hunt 06 Dec '98

06 Dec '98

Hi Brendon Yes please... do send me a copy of either the html rendition of TOR 2.1.rtf from Frank March and save me the hassle of finding a win32 login somewhere. Also have I missed the minutes of the get together at Cisco Systems? I am of course quite interested to read these. ~without prejudice~ :) I am told that RTF was meant to be an open standard but typical of a certain company's style of doing business that standard got "slightly" changed with subsequent releases of their software without publication of all of those changes so there are irritating situations when an RTF was created in recent Word and then one tries to open it in other software that (rightly) claims to support RTF. I guess if that is so then it explains a lot ... as in the end other vendors have to sniff out the changes and are usually one step behind therefore... so all credit to the StarOffice team if their suite handled an RTF with tables etc and did so impeccably) Robert Hunt --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1