- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Michael Newbery 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

>>>> Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> - 10/14/98 6:24 PM >>> >On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 05:42:38PM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote: >> >> Do people, when they move house, get pissed at telecom that they >> can't alway take their phone number with them? Is telecom being >> unreasonable here? > >They will, actually, as long as your new connection is off the same >exchange. Funnily enough, this is a matter that Saturn is very aware of :-|. Yes, they do, and yes, they are. At least, within the same local area. Just to be awkward, consider a cell phone number. The cell networks are set up to divorce indentity from locality. Landline telephone networks are less well set up, but still capable. In fact the situation is much as for IP---the exchanges have to maintain lookup tables that say "send *this* number *there*", rather than using rule based routing. Where IP and the telephone system differ is that this cost is incurred only at call setup (which is why TCNZ's current policy is iniquitous) whereas IP routes individual packets. But that's what caches are for. Back to the subject at hand. Back when we set up the VUW network, we had about 12 (from memory) machines set up using an invalid IP network 'plucked from the air'. This was before the private address ranges. When we got our class B (where we argued that although we did not have more than 254 machines, we would some day. Try that now :-). I recall the pain in moving. For only 12 machines. When I got here I found (invalid) IP addresses hard coded in all sorts of unfortunate places. Most had been set up by 3rd party equipment suppliers. Some were due to lazy (and IP-unaware) programmers. The point I am making is: Do NOT underestimate the pain caused by IP renumbering. Now that everyone and his dog is using IP, all sorts of pieces of equipment you might not expect have addresses buried deep with in them, and 18 mo down the track this fact is unknown to the current keepers of the key. -- Michael Newbery Technology Manager Saturn Communications Tel: +64-4-915 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

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 14 Oct '98

14 Oct '98

Hi Robert, Thanks for the excellent perspective on this issue. I'll only make a few comments. > 3. New entrants should not be disadvantaged (as they would be if we have one > set of rules for NZGATE addresses) and should also be able to obtain > provider independent addresses on terms no less attractive than existing > operators enjoy. For entrants who expect to need a reasonable amount of address space, there is little difference. The situation for those needing less is, unfortunately, difficult because small blocks of newly obtained addresses are unlikely to be routable. However, new entrants may be able to use NATs or otherwise build their systems to allow easy renumbering. The main problem for existing users is that changing can be difficult, expensive, and not commercially viable because few had anticipated a need to ever have to renumber (and the systems to make this easy were not available then). > 4. Incentives to corporates in particular to relinquish unused addresses This is an excellent idea. Perhaps all the incentives are already there (improved security, portability, future proofing, shorter outages from route flapping, etc). Perhaps we put together a readable document on the subject and distribute it widely. Providing incentives is certainly a much better approach than trying to coerce people into migrating -- and maybe we could get corporates to migrate without moving (resulting in more migration). > One of the elements missing here in NZ is the idea of a Local Internet > Registry, see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-159.html (which is kind of what > I thought NZGATE was). I think lots of others did too, including APNIC. -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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Hi. > Who do you propose will pay the end users for the pain and real costs > involved? The ISPs have the easy part of this renumbering. I don't see > people renumbering because it's the right thing to do. They'll do it > because they have to e.g. when they move ISP. But if they have a /24 they don't have to. What this group is attempting to do is impose costs on the end users only if they try to move ISPs. It's a great way to lock up your clients. There is no technical reason to make users renumber when they move (just as there is no strong reason to make everyone move for the sake of moving). Getting everyone to migrate seems to be a goal, but yet by making users renumber only when they move, you will slow movement and thus migration. Importantly, the current proposal is not workable. The first client whose renumbering exercise is expensive will likely seek an injuction against any provider attempting to enforce these ideas. The balance of convenience would favor the end user and not the provider (who will suffer zero or no loss or convenience as a result of the end user not renumbering). In the case of an ISP, web hosting company, or business which depends on the Internet (and that's a good percentage of them now), not changing providers may not be a viable option. By opening the door with an N month grace period you are only showing everyone that it's technically possible but that you don't want to do it for commercial reasons. Restrictions on portability have never been _introduced_ anywhere else for _historical_ IP addresses. Half the root name servers are running on /24s -- every wonder why that is? I see no real benefit here -- we will still have ISPs moving these addresses around for years to come (the proposal rightly allows for that) -- what reason makes routes for ISPs look any different than routes for end users? How about we just agree to ask clients with NZGATE number to renumber on moves (we have a form/statement we all agree to give them), but eliminate any requirement to renumber)? -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

4 4

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Robert Gray 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Clearly this subject has provoked some very considered discussion on the subject of address portability. For those interested RIPE-127 (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-127.html) provides a useful and lucid dissertation on the subject and offers a number of sensible recommendations. To selectively quote "All early Internet address space assignments were provider independent. Many assignments made by ISPs are also formally provider independent because they lack the clear prior understanding between ISP and customer that the assignment will end with the termination of the service." On the historical side regarding NZGATE I personally believe this is the key issue, i.e. unless you were told the space was not portable then it is. This however begs the question of how best to organise for the future. We are not an ISP in the accepted sense as we do not offer connectivity except as part of an overall package. We are however a significant user of IP addresses for web and mail servers. Joe's possible solution and the discussion so far causes us some concern. Having recently been through the process of re-numbering and implementing NAT it proved a major undertaking and one I would hesitate to repeat. We made a number of errors resulting in outages for our clients and irritation to our suppliers and I am at a loss to see how these could have been avoided. Hopefully with NAT now in place we would make it a little easier however the number and scope of DNS changes, firewall changes, authentication changes and the fact that these must occur in one 'hit' makes it commercially pretty unacceptable. With today's firewalls/proxy servers there should be no issue for even large corporates to renumber over time, given incentive to do so. IPv6 should give this if no other reason. Smaller providers however are faced with significant problems in re-numbering which although they may seem small time are in fact relatively expensive and difficult for such an operator to overcome. We now have an example where one of our clients has been enticed by the offer of a /24 by another ISP with NZGATE addresses to burn, something we are unable to provide. I have to say that I consider this sort of behaviour seriously unethical. For me, key elements of a solution are: 1. Access providers should not be able to hold downstream operators to ransom by withholding IP addresses and forcing such users to renumber if they move. 2. The solution should offer all existing ISP players long term access to the provider independent IP addresses they need to do business. In other words a level playing field. 3. New entrants should not be disadvantaged (as they would be if we have one set of rules for NZGATE addresses) and should also be able to obtain provider independent addresses on terms no less attractive than existing operators enjoy. 4. Incentives to corporates in particular to relinquish unused addresses One of the elements missing here in NZ is the idea of a Local Internet Registry, see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-159.html (which is kind of what I thought NZGATE was). To quote again "Local IRs are typically operated by ISPs and serve the customers of those ISPs as well as the customers of smaller ISPs who are connected to the rest of the Internet through the larger ISP." Seems to me that a Local IR might be really useful. If I can contribute a beer sounds like an excellent scheme. 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

NZNOG Acceptable Use Policy
by Donald Neal 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

NZNOG Subscribers, Below is the Acceptable Use Policy of the North American Network Operators' Group mailing list. I suspect in may be about time this list acquired such a policy, though possibly without quite so many dire warnings. It is indeed true that this list is not a cartel of any kind, and IP renumbering is clearly relevant, but it may be a good idea to have some sort of policy in place before it is needed rather than afterwards. In the absence of any feedback to this posting I intend to suggest to list subscribers the adoption of a policy bearing some resemblance to what appears below. Donald Neal NZNOG list owner/administrator/muggins ---------- Charter The NANOG mailing list is established to provide a forum for the exchange of technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that require cooperation among network service providers. In order to continue to provide a useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, the list will now be governed by the following guidelines: Acceptable Use Policy 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as described in the charter of NANOG. 2.Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. 5.Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Individuals who violate these guidelines will be contacted personally and asked to adhere to the guidelines. If an individual persists in violating the guidelines, the convenor of NANOG, Merit Network, Inc., will take action to filter the offender's messages to the list. If groups of individuals persist in introducing topics that are outside the charter of NANOG, the convenor will send a request to the entire mailing list requesting adherence to the guidelines. If the discussion continues unabated, the convenor will take action to filter all postings on the topic. --------- 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: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Warwick GLENDENNING 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Its not a problem for the University as such but those distals buying traffic from us who currently have NZgate address blocks. As yes we make very good use of our class B address. Regards Warwick *********************************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA Dip.Mgt.St. Network Services Manager Information and Technology Services University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton, NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax:07-8384066 mobile: 025-356121 email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 1998 15:17 To: Warwick GLENDENNING Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ Warwick GLENDENNING wrote: > > I disagree as an end customer of the ISP's and currently planning to migrate > to Clear I would prefer to see a migration period of 3 months. > > Regards > Warwick > Surely the University of Waikato has it's own /16 prefix from the "good old days" (tm) and as such won't be affected by the above problems. If they have space over and above that then they should be encouraged to get dispose of that ASAP. -- 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

1 0

Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

Hi. > I have prepared a VERY DRAFT paper in an attempt to clarify the situation > regarding IP addresses delegated historically by NZGATE, and to describe > one possible approach for bringing the current situation into line with > current policies of provider-based addressing. I must say i'm slightly confused about the rationale here. Has Telecom issued a "renumber or move to us decree"? Or is it just that they are advertising the NZGATE CIDR blocks? If they are pushing "renumber or move to us" then we should seek a legal opinion on the matter. I sincerely doubt that where a class C was issued to an NZ company with the understanding that they could move providers (and many were as this was accepted practice in 1994), that Telecom could claim any right of use whatsoever. >From the client's point of view, the restrictions suggested on the use of NZGATE addresses are not a good thing. Many of these addresses were assigned before provider based addressing was in vogue, and it's seems strange now that we should attempt to impose these restrictions and force renumbering (on moves) on networks which may wish to use NZGATE addresses in the provider independent fashion in which they were issued (a fair percentage of NZ companies connected to the Internet in NZ in 1995 had their own class C for the sole purpose that could take it with them). It is not a myth that rights or ownership _of_use_ of a Class C issued via Waikato in 1994 belongs to the company to whom it was issued. This was standard practice at the time. I'm not aware of US or European IP addresses that were, subsequent to the introduction of provider based addressing, forcibly aggregated under a single provider, nor had the conditions on which routing would be allowed revoked. The current practice of portability of NZGATE addresses is fair and fits with international practice. Any attempt by Telecom or a consortium of ISPs to limit portability is not a good thing, even if current practice now is for IP addresses to be most often issued in a non-portable fashion. To sumarise: 1) provider based addressing was not widely practiced in 1994. 2) companies obtained class C's from Waikato in that and subsequent years with the understanding that they were portable. 3) there were no distinctions between which addresses were in provider blocks and which weren't in those early years. 4) now that we have provider based addressing, it does not make sense to assume that all the old IP addresses belong to a particular provider. 5) now that we have provider based addressing, it does not make sense to impose any new limitations on IP addresses obtained earlier. Such addresses may easily require the same portability as is now required of provider blocks. 6) Neither Telecom's (alleged) ideas nor the draft's suggestions fit accepted international practice for historically assigned IP addresses. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

6 10

RE: NZGATE addressing within NZ
by Warwick GLENDENNING 13 Oct '98

13 Oct '98

I disagree as an end customer of the ISP's and currently planning to migrate to Clear I would prefer to see a migration period of 3 months. Regards Warwick *********************************************************************** Warwick Glendenning NZCE REA Dip.Mgt.St. Network Services Manager Information and Technology Services University of Waikato Private Bag 3105 Hamilton, NZ Tel:07-8384363 Fax:07-8384066 mobile: 025-356121 email:warwickg(a)waikato.ac.nz -----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Andy Linton Sent: Wednesday, 14 October 1998 14:54 To: Joe Abley Cc: Craig Anderson; jclark(a)puck.clear.net.nz; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ Joe Abley wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:29:25AM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote: > > > > There is also a very serious danger with trying to force this non-portability > > aspect. It reeks of commercial and not technical motives. It looks > > like a way to lock up customers by making it difficult to change providers. > > And without a serious technical reason (like if we don't do it, no one will > > be able to use the Internet), it is. If i didn't know Joe better, i would > > have suspected this was part of the reasoning. Nevertheless, one has to > > look as well as be very clean on any proposal in this area -- looking or > > behaving like a cartel will cause serious problems. > > Thanks for the vote of confidence (I think ;) > > There are both technical and commercial reasons for wanting to tie the > issue down, and I mentioned both in the "issues" section in my original > message. > > > I believe we can accomplish the basic goals with different rules, rules that > > are fair, fit existing practices, and have little potential commercial motive. > > How about we use: > > > > You can't move unless the entire block allocated by Waikato was > > allocated to you (or else you renumber). > > > > This allows ISPs to move about freely as suggested, some companies will also > > be able to move, but not those who obtained their IP addresses from an ISP. > > This will help prevent much further fragmentation, will help prevent > > overlapping advertisements, and helps clarify "ownership". > > We will need APNIC buy-in, and I agree with Chris that a migration period > can be helpful, as long as it is enforced (i.e. enforcable). I agree on a migration period as well but I think 6 months is much too long. Consider the scenario where several /22 networks change to use another provider over the 6 month period. This could result in large amounts of space being unavailable. I doubt whether APNIC would be well disposed to issue more space in this case. I'd suggest that a maximum period of two months would be a better time scale. I also believe that the 'receiving' ISP needs to make it clear to their new customer that this time scale must be adhered to. Presumably we can all agree that once we get people working from provider based blocks then the playing field is level and that renumbering is no longer such a barrier to migration. Customers need to understand that one of the costs involved in moving will be renumbering. I've currently got these networks: 203.97.128.0/17 202.37.0.0/20 202.27.40.0/21 202.49.208.0/21 202.27.64.0/22 202.27.92.0/22 202.27.104.0/22 202.36.164.0/22 202.36.192.0/22 202.37.60.0/22 202.49.72.0/22 202.27.70.0/23 202.27.78.0/23 202.27.82.0/23 202.36.32.0/23 202.36.44.0/23 202.36.162.0/23 202.36.244.0/23 202.37.32.0/23 202.37.56.0/23 202.37.72.0/23 202.27.34.0/24 202.27.68.0/24 202.27.88.0/24 202.27.100.0/24 202.27.128.0/24 202.36.29.0/24 202.36.34.0/24 202.36.46.0/24 202.36.60.0/24 202.36.70.0/24 202.36.72.0/24 202.36.76.0/24 202.36.80.0/24 202.36.114.0/24 202.36.137.0/24 202.36.141.0/24 202.36.154.0/24 202.36.157.0/24 202.36.171.0/24 202.36.173.0/24 202.36.196.0/24 202.36.198.0/24 202.36.224.0/24 202.36.229.0/24 202.36.235.0/24 202.36.239.0/24 202.36.240.0/24 202.36.251.0/24 202.36.252.0/24 202.37.23.0/24 202.37.27.0/24 202.37.52.0/24 202.37.54.0/24 202.37.78.0/24 202.37.85.0/24 202.37.112.0/24 202.37.114.0/24 202.37.166.0/24 202.37.173.0/24 202.37.235.0/24 202.49.50.0/24 202.49.84.0/24 202.49.86.0/24 202.49.140.0/24 202.49.193.0/24 202.49.194.0/24 202.49.197.0/24 202.49.206.0/24 202.50.102.0/24 202.50.137.0/24 202.50.139.0/24 202.50.164.0/24 202.50.252.0/24 --------- 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

2 1

Re: NZNOG Acceptable Use Policy -Reply
by Donald Neal 12 Oct '98

12 Oct '98

Jamie, Discussion of beer in general terms is philosophical. Discussion of specific applications of beer is operational. And the more network service providers the beer is to be applied to, the more operational it is. :{)* - Donald >>> Jamie Clark <jclark(a)puck.clear.net.nz> 14/October/1998 04:25pm >>> Hmmm... On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Donald Neal wrote: > Acceptable Use Policy > > 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues as > described in the charter of NANOG. > 2.Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. > 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. > 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and lack > of respect for other participants are prohibited. > 5.Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. > 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. Is Beer an operational issue or is it of philosphical nature? Technically speaking, of course. -Jamie --------- 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

Beer
by Joe Abley 12 Oct '98

12 Oct '98

So are we going for beer on Friday or not? To avoid any confusion this is directed at people in Auckland. Readers elsewhere (including those who have absconded to the Dark Side of the Tasman and have Sold Their Souls to vendors) can make their own arrangements :) -- Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Tel +64 9 912-4065, Fax +64 9 912-5008 Network Architect, CLEAR Net http://www.clear.net.nz/ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0