- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by Chris Wedgwood 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

> > Most specifically dampening. > > I don't think that makes routing faster or easier, it just makes life > easier for people when bad things might otherwise happen. Dampening was introduced to mitigate the effects (like 100% CPU load) route flapping had on hardware resources. Things like cache invalidation caused by route flaps certainly directly affect routing performance. > But you beleive that any /24 route should be considered completely > portable in most circumstances? Not at all. /24's where ownership is rightly assumed and where the /24 is in a block where the minimum allocation size was /24. For the NZGATE addresses we are asking that the minimum allocation size be recognised as /24. -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

Re: legal issues, courts etc
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Hi. > I think the first step in this is to get the "ownership" issues aired (I > don't think it will be "solved") at the ISOCNZ conference tomorrow; at > least then hopefully we'll have some idea of what various positions are. > I don't think the ex-NZGate issue can be really proceeded on without > that. Agreed. Since Iprolink will not have a representative attending the ISOCNZ conference. I will state our company's position on ownership: 1) ownership of NZGATE addresses belong to the company to which they were assigned. In the case of ISPs sub-assigning blocks, this may be a contractual matter between the ISP and the client; 2) NZGATE addresses include only those previously noted and within 202/8; and 3) we would view attempts by a group of NZ ISPs to block or otherwise restrict portability of the NZGATE addresses as illegal. I've already discussed some of the technical issues surrounding this matter, i'll repeat them. Some of this represents our position on technical issues: 1) in 1995 there was very valid concern that because routing table growth was outstriping router CPU and memory growth that is was only a matter of time before major routing problems developed; 2) the introduction of CIDR, minimum allocations sizes (no new assignments longer than /19), and improvements in routing software, have slowed router table memory and CPU requirements to much less than improvements in technology are delivering and can be expected to deliver. In short, the changes have removed any _need_ to introduce further changes and in fact indicate a relaxing of rules is more likely; 3) The only route filtering occurring on the Internet today that affects connectivity (i.e. backbones with no default route) is being done on /8's where the minimum allocation size is /19. With half the root nameservers on /24's, wholesale short prefix filtering will not occur in the short term. Attempts to predict long term policy are not valid. 4) The NZGATE addresses are in a /8 block where the minimum allocation size was /24; 5) With 40,000+ routes, it's hard to make a case that the addition of several hundred routes due to migration is significant (more than several hundred additional routes are unlikely because of aggregation and the likelyhood of distribution tending to favor a few ISPs). And with regard to policy: 1) Iprolink would support a public statement which encourages migration to new addresses (by explaining the benefits) where it would not tend increase use of address space. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

new version of caida tool for capacity planning/trend analysis
by k claffy 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

per Barry Greene's request to forward to some of the Asian groups, the following was posted to nanog earlier this week: >From kc Mon Nov 16 15:01 PST 1998 Received: (from kc(a)localhost) by caida.org (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA21116; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:01:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19981116150126.A18088(a)caida.org> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:01:26 -0800 From: k claffy <kc(a)caida.org> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: new version of caida tool for capacity planning/trend analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: RO Content-Length: 1121 Lines: 36 heads up to ISPs into operational measurement of workload characteristics cflowd 2.0 code is now available for use in analyzing export-flows from ciscos http://www.caida.org/Tools/Cflowd/ software collects output from cisco's netflow export then aggregates the data in ISP-engineering relevant ways as-to-as matrices ( --> peering engineering) net-to-net matrics ( --> peering/routing engineering ) port and protocol tables ( --> capacity engineering, what traffic is your infrastructure supporting, how is it changing, how much of it elastic/optimizable/ hyperzealous/cache-able/etc ) other stuff ( and continually adding features for members, plus src available for your own footloose entertainment ) cflowd 2.0 is a redesign of cflowd 1.3b2 and includes arts++ for storage as well as significant improvements in user interfaces and functionality. details on the code and mail lists are available at the website, or by contacting cflowd's developer, daniel mcRobb, at dwm(a)caida.org think you'll like always seeking your feedback/experience, k --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

legal issues, courts etc
by Don Stokes 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Chris writes: >The industry we are in and technology we work with is comparatively >new and most legal systems are doing an very poor job and keeping up >with the state of things and hence their abilities to make >`reasonable' decisions and pass reasonable legislation in woefully >inadequate (this isn't a slight against the people involved, these >things take time). <sigh> Civil law has nothing whatsoever to do with technology. It's entirely to do with what is agreed (or not agreed) between parties and what the contractual obligations and liabilities are. And the place to sort those issues out, where a binding ruling is needed bacause voluntary negotiation has failed, is the court. It's one of things that helps make our society work. It's not going to go away. It doesn't take a technically oriented judge to say "you don't have a contract that says you can do this so you can't do this". Technical issues may be factors to take into account in evidence, but they're not points of law, and as such generally don't need to be enshrined in law. I think the opposition to the Rogers bill demonstrated that. I don't really want to get into a debate about philosophy of law and technology on a technical list, but I do think it needs to be pointed out that there are contractual issues on all sides of the problem at hand that need to be taken into account. -- don --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 2

Re: your mail
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Chris Wedgwood wrote:- >Not wishing to comment on other details, I will point out the claims >like `court action is a useful last resort' are bullshit. Legal action is a completely reasonable solution where two parties cant agree and all other options have been exausted. That is why we have the courts. The fact that IP networks may not have featured in court cases to date does not in my view diminish the legal system's capability to deal with a dispute involving such things. This is because the issue is likely to be about a sale and purchase agreement between the upstream provider and their customer. There is no problem with a court ruling on these sorts of things, because they do so every day. What may be a bizzare outcome is if a court rules that a customer has title or some other exclusive right to a particular network, and even orders the NZ upstream provider to route it, International upstream providers outside the reach of a NZ court may still refuse or be unable to route it, so thus it is broke. It may be yours, but you wont want it anymore because it dont work! Another solution is needed. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

None
by Don Stokes 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

Joe writes: >Then we have a technical, operational and _global_ issue being decided >by a New Zealand court. This is worth avoiding at all costs. While I'm not sure that court action should always be avoided "at all costs" (it's useful as a last resort), I think heading this off at the pass is a good idea. And we have to realise that legal issues will raise their heads -- it's no good coming up with a "technical" solution that can be contested in court, because sure as eggs somebody isn't going to like it. So a position that makes sense technically, contractually and legally needs to be developed. Legally speaking, policy documents from the APNIC (apnic-11) pertaining to the period when most 202/8 assignments were made imply that IP addresses are portable unless explicitly stated otherwise. "Stating otherwise" is an interesting point -- the NetGate contracts being waved around about this time quite explicitly stated that numbers belonged to NetGate -- thus anyone with 202/8 addresses assigned by Waikato U acting as an agent of NetGate after signing such a document have non-portable addresses. (This may be contestable regarding how Waikato's position was or wasn't represented to the end user, but at least there's a bit of paper as a starting point in the argument.) Addresses allocated via UoW prior to the NetGate would appear to me to fall into the "portable" category, since no policy statement was ever issued prior to or at the time of such assignments that contradicts the position stated in the apnic-11 document. (apnic-11 expired in mid '95, but the superseding document wasn't issued until mid '96, which itself doesn't appear to state a position on portability.) I think that adequately sums up the contractual situation, at least in broad terms. Someone tell me if they disagree with that. This I believe is a completely separate issue to the question of how to improve the aggregation of network addresses. /24 prefixes in old blocks are generally regarded as a fact of life, to be addressed as and when possible, but not an issue when addressing overall Internet routing table growth, since the number of these addresses is not increasing. It seems to me that the second side of the issue is whether an ISP can or should route a given address block; after all, it doesn't matter who "owns" the block, if their prospective ISP won't route the address they can't use it. On the other hand, that ISP may lose the business in favour of one that will route the address. So I think a common position on how to migrate users to provider addresses, taking into account the cost of renumbering has to be found, and it can't be a position based on "ownership". The third issue, is whether there is a place for NZ-based allocation of addresses. I'm rather in two minds about that -- I'm not sure NZ really has enough addressing activity to justify an NZ registry, but it still bothers me a little that IP addressing is controlled by an offshore organisation. Comments? -- don --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Re: Let's try to sort the NZgate address questions out
by 2Day Chief Enthusiast 18 Nov '98

18 Nov '98

>I've arranged with Cisco Systems for a room at their offices, Level 28, >ASB Tower, 135 Albert Street, Auckland at 10:00 am on Friday 27 >November. I've done it this way so that there's something definite for >us to aim at and because I see that Auckland is the most sensible venue >for this. If you are not fixed on a date, can it be the following Friday? I would really like to attend this meeting, but have prior commitments. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited http://www.2day.net.nz -/- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

meeting as technical people
by Robert Hunt 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

Hello NZNOG, I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question. Robert Hunt Plain Communications (still using 202.36.174.0 for all our most important servers and still expecting those numbers to be portable if we change NSP) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 3

meeting as technical people -Reply
by Donald Neal 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

People, It is important to bear in mind that the use of provider-based addressing is a reality of the Internet's operation, and has been for some years. There are important issues of process regarding the way in which transitions by customers from one service provider to another are handled, but there are in general no issues of ownership to be discussed without major changes to the architecture of the (global) Internet. Issues related to the surviving pre-CIDR addresses need to be kept separate if progress is to be made on them. - Donald Neal (Opinions expressed in this posting may not be those of Telecom NZ Ltd, though if Telecom NZ Ltd are sensible they'll agree with me.) >>> Robert Hunt <roberth(a)plain.co.nz> 18/November/1998 01:05pm >>> Hello NZNOG, I fail to see how a meeting can be successful where there is not comprehensive representation of the decision makers in matters of ownership/proprietary claim as that seems to be the basis of some of the most contentious aspects under discussion. Certainly as far as the 202/8 continued portability... the issue cannot be resolved as a purely technical elegance question. Robert Hunt Plain Communications (still using 202.36.174.0 for all our most important servers and still expecting those numbers to be portable if we change NSP) --------- 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: meeting as technical people -Reply
by Robert Gray 17 Nov '98

17 Nov '98

Donald Neal wrote on Wednesday, 18 November 1998: > It is important to bear in mind that the use of provider-based addressing > is a reality of the Internet's operation, and has been for some years. > There are important issues of process regarding the way in which > transitions by customers from one service provider to another are > handled, .......... Hopefully Donald, you will be on hand on the 27th to assist us understand your (and perhaps Telecoms') views and progess towards to a concensus we can all live with? 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