- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New , Zealand
by Simon Blake 29 Jun '98

29 Jun '98

Hey yawl. On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Joe Abley wrote: > Well, it's been a while, and there hasn't been much comment on this. Here > we go, then: a proposal. Feel free to shoot me down in flames if this > doesn't sit happily with anybody else :) > > 1. Establish a second emulated LAN on CityLink for BGP peering between > cooperating network operators. This will consist of a series of bilateral > agreements between individual network operators. No customers should > connect to ISPs over this network - this will be a "clean" IP-only > network. While I appreciate that the ISP's primary desire is an interconnect to exchange data with their "peers" (in the loosest sense of the word) on a national basis, I would really like to see an exchange set up in Wellington that also allowed any local organisation to peer on the WIX for *local* traffic. Specifically, the shared ethernet that the ISP's are attached to in Wellington has some 50 other organisations on ir, most at 10Mb/s, some at 100Mb/s. On a daily basis we get the "I'm sending data to some other user of Citylink, and it's really slow" grumble, generally because their traffic is going via Waikato, or Auckland, or wherever. Peering between the ISP's should fix most of these problems. Increasingly, however, we're hearing "we're a customer of ISP X, we're sending data to another customer of ISP X, and performance is still rotten", which peering won't necessarily fix, because it isn't an inter ISP issue. With the advent of more 100Mb/s+ connections, and the increasing desire of local organisations to use Citylink to move massive amounts (A2 full colour spreads, for eg) of data between themselves, this situation isn't likely to improve. Therefore it seems desirable that Citylink attached organisations be able to communicate amongst themselves, without needing to pass through an ISP's router. So, while the ISP's do need a bilateral peering point where individual operators can choose whether to (in effect) carry other ISP's data on their national network, I would like to see a tandem system implemented where local Citylink users can share routes for locally attached networks amongst themselves. I'd also observe that VLAN's aren't (yet) a product of Citylink, (although our current backbone switches do support them), and probably won't be until somebody asks. So it behooves the ISP's concerned to get a request into Richard and Alan so that they can get the product development wheels in motion. > 2. To make (1) as smooth as possible, individual operators should make > efforts to install up-to-date route entries and associated policy into the > Merit (Route Arbiter) routing registry. This will also help with a similar > operation on NZIX. Citylink are/can provide hardware to make a local RA registry a reality, which is presumably necessary if non AS numbered entities want to join the IX? > 3. The Wellington peering network will be called "WIX". ISOCNZ have > reserved wix.net.nz for this purpose. NetLink have offered to keep the > zone fed and watered; any operator should be able to perform zone > transfers for wix.net.nz and NS records for that operators nameserver will > be added by rough concensus (i.e. as long as the nameserver in question > seems to be up most of the time :) > > 4. A class C network will be obtained from ISI by ISOCNZ. This costs > US$500. ISOCNZ will bill a proportion of this amount to all the initial > participants in WIX. The corresponding in-addr.arpa zone will be run by > NetLink on behalf of the peering community, in much the same way as > wix.net.nz. With a bit of arm twisting, I could probably squeeze a couple of unused pre-CIDR Class C's out of WCC - would that be a useful/cheaper alternative? Citylink would (I imagine) also be happy to act as a neutral party for DNS maintenance or ISI billing. Cheers Si Simon Blake simon(a)citylink.co.nz +64 25 300 825 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

8 16

Re: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand (fwd)
by Joe Abley 17 Jun '98

17 Jun '98

Hi again, ISI are prepared to allocate us an unencumbered class C network for WIX, which should be sufficient for ISP-peering-over-CNH purposes. There are some costs involved (below). Basically the options are: 1. ISI perform allocation of IP addresses to individual ISPs, maintain contact information, etc, etc. This costs US$1200 per year (details below). 2. ISI delegate the address block and let us sort that kind of thing out amongst ourselves. That costs US$500 per year. What do people think? Given that the use of CityLink specifically for ISP peering purposes seems to be beyond CNH's mandate, I presume that if we were to go for this the fees should be paid by someone other than CNH. Is this a candidate for a proposal to ISOCNZ or Domainz (or even Uniforum) for funding? Or should we just have a whip-round? Yes, you may well ask what I am doing messing about with this at 3:30am on a Saturday morning. That is a very good question :) Joe -- 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT) From: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Cc: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU Subject: Re: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand > > Looks good so far. Now we come to the cost issue. Currently we > > are asking for a registration fee of US$100/month for maintaining > > the delegation and registering each connecting participant. > > This is a fee of US$1200.00 per year for the whole exchange and > > all its participants. > > > > Is this acceptable? > > Could you clarify exactly what the fee covers, and exactly what > registration fuction ISI performs? The fee covers the cost of keeping up with the delegation as a /24 and for each /32 underneath it. This involves regular checkups with each site to ensure that the contact information is correct. This works out to be about 8 hours a month, average for a clerk to perform the contacts and followups. > What we are really looking for is a 24-bit block of globally-unique > addresses, in-addr.arpa delegations for the block, and that's about it. We > have good cooperation between all ISPs involved, and do not anticipate > needing a third party to allocate individual addresses. If you are willing to take on the whole task, then the cost is an annual registration fee of US$500.00 This is to ensure that the exchange is still functioning and meets the use criteria. > Does the monthly charge still apply in this situation? I broke out the fee as a monthly cost. Generally the invoices are annual, with some on a quarterly basis and two are on multiyear agreements. --bill --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 6

BGP peering at NZIX
by Joe Abley 05 Jun '98

05 Jun '98

Hi all, Following up yet again, this time on some discussions to date regarding peering at NZIX using BGP. Just a couple of things which have sprung into my mind... Running OSPF and BGP simultaneously on NZIX routers will continue to be necessary until we have gained critical mass, and have reached a stage at which OSPF can be depreciated. Given that this is the short-term situation, it seems to me that we need to be careful of a couple of things. I am using CLEAR as an example only :) 1. If CLEAR is to peer with provider X over NZIX, then we will want a list of routes from provider X so that we can build a filter for routes received from X's BGP speaker(s). Until X's routes are entered and maintained in a RR of some kind (like the RADB), adds moves and changes to this list will be a manual process. [*] 2. If X makes more specific (i.e. longer prefix) advertisements using OSPF, those are the routes we will use. This is important if CLEAR is to peer with X somewhere else in addition to NZIX (e.g. WIX), as we will always prefer longer-prefix routes. 3. If X makes less specific (i.e. shorter prefix) advertisements across NZIX than they do their global transit provider, then we will likely route to them via Australia or the US. As we get things going, there will probably be times where routing becomes sub-optimal (or, in fact, completely broken :) Could I suggest that people going ahead with BGP across NZIX announce their progress to this list to help everybody track down problems if (when) they arise? [*] Not having route objects stored in a RR of some kind is going to make maintaining route filters a sticky business for all concerned. There is running code at Merit - do we have loose agreement that the RADB is a suitable place to do this? If there is interest, I am happy to dredge through the appropriate documentation and produce a quick-and-dirty guide to RADB object manipulation. Joe -- 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

2 1

WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand (fwd)
by Joe Abley 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Hi all, Following on from some of our WIX-numbering discussions at Taupo, I have received word from APNIC that a delegation direct from them for WIX is not possible within the scope of their current policy. However, Yoshiko has pointed me towards Bill Manning of ISI, who has been delegating address space to other exchanges around the world already. I have sent him a brief description of the problem, and have asked for assistance -- copy of note attached below FYcollectiveI. Joe -- 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 02:00:58 +1200 (NZST) From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: bmanning(a)ISI.EDU Cc: Yoshiko Okazaki ChongFong <yoshiko(a)apnic.net>, hostmaster(a)teckla.apnic.net Subject: WIX: Neutral Exchange Point in Wellington, New Zealand Bill, Yoshiko ChongFong of APNIC gave me your name, and mentioned that you were currently involved in the delegation of globally-unique IP address space to neutral exchange points. I am writing regarding a relatively new neutral exchange network located in Wellington, New Zealand. Wellington City Council have facilitated a city-wide fibre-optic network called CityLink (http://www.citylink.co.nz), and one of the key applications of that network is an emulated ethernet network called "WIX" provided to facilitate peering between the various ISPs who maintain points of presence in Wellington. I work for CLEAR Net, an ISP in NZ, and am writing informally on behalf of the New Zealand Network Operators Group (NZNOG). The desire to formalise peering arrangements over WIX has been expressed at several recent NZNOG meetings. CityLink have a mandate to provide connectivity, but are keen to allow the NZ ISP community to develop their own procedures/guidelines for the operation of WIX as a neutral exchange point. To date limited peering has been obtained using rfc1918 address space; however, the non-uniqueness of the ranges used so far (and an inability to locate a suitable range of rfc1918 addresses that suits _everybody_) is preventing wider peering. I am investigating the possiblity of obtaining a block of globally unique addresses with which to number ISP interfaces on WIX. The intention is that these addresses will be reachable from within NZ ISPs, but will not be advertised internationally. Hence a subnet allocated from within a supernet delegation operated by any single ISP is undesirable, since (a) any such network would be advertised by virtue of the supernet route, and (b) the address range is not particularly "neutral". New Zealand has a history of free and unencumbered peering between domestic providers using exchanges such as NZIX as well as bilateral peering arrangements; the inexpensive network transport within Wellington provided by CityLink fibre has the potential to greatly enhance connectivity for all concerned. I have approached APNIC, whose position is that a 24-bit block is not possible to delegate from their supernets within their current policy. Does the application I have described fit your exchange numbering project? Regards, Joe -- 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 20:29:09 +0900 From: Yoshiko Okazaki ChongFong <yoshiko(a)apnic.net> To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> Cc: hostmaster(a)teckla.apnic.net Subject: Re: (Neutral Exchange Point in Wellingon, New Zealand ) Hi, >1. Does an allocation of a separate block for this exchange point fit >in with APNIC policy for block allocation? Not really. APNIC usually allocates address space to ISPs and the initial allocation is a /19. Since the requirement is barely a /24, APNIC would not be comfortable accepting WIX to be a member of APNIC. Also we do NOT allocate separate /24 block to existing members for this sort of purposes. >2. If the application fits general APNIC policy, can CLEAR apply for >the address space (by virtue of its APNIC membership) on behalf of >Wellington City Council? As I explained above, APNIC cannot allocate separate /24 block to WIX through CLEAR and we do not recommend them to become a separate member of APNIC either. What APNIC recommend is that as Bill Manning, bmanning(a)ISI.EDU, is allocating address space to exchange points. You might want to contact him for more details. Here is the URL for his project is http://www.isi.edu/div7/naps/. Regards, Yoshiko -APNIC hostmaster ---------------- --------- 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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Arron Scott 04 Jun '98

04 Jun '98

Ok ... so I didn't mean the whole question of who will arbitrate a RR at the three IX points to dominate the whole list, but I do think it raises a concern with such systems. My own personal view is that this should have been the kind of stuff a Code of Conduct should have described, or should be defined by a board governing each IX. Democracy doesn't always get things done, sometime someone has to just define the rules. If we are to employ a Route Registry at any of the IX's or indeed on a point-to-point peering connection with each other, then we need to ensure the rules are agreed upon first. There are a number of downstream ISPs that sit behind the likes of the wholesalers and the top 10 ISPs, and these guys will be directly affected by such a policy, and need to know the rules as well. Sorry this next bit gets a bit confusing. Take JimISP who have "BigBusiness Inc" attached to them, and they all reside under Xtra under NetGate. Due to misinformation :) "BigBusiness" are convinced to move to DaveISP who are under ClearNet who are under Clear. Now ... who in this case is responsible for making sure the RR is updated, realising that JimISP could have entered the entry in the RR themselves and Xtra and NetGate may have nothing to do with the change at all ? Also ... who is going to make sure DaveISP knows how to get the customer updated in the RR when they get new customers ? Finally ... who is going to have to update the RR at 2:30am on Sunday morning when the customer demands that they be moved right now ? Right now I'm not sure we know half of what's going on out there, the RR will help us to find out for sure, but it may also delay implementation times for those who do move from provider to provider, which may make us very unpopular. Arron Scott _________________________________________________________________________ Arron Scott Phone: ++64-9-3569687 Service Specialist Fax: ++64-9-3794790 Service Implementation & Management Group Cell: ++64-25-883163 Telecom NZ Ltd eMail: arrons(a)netgate.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

Re: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

From: Andy Linton <Andy.Linton(a)netlink.co.nz> > >I'd have gone for 'half of the net community' if I were saying it. (:-) > >I'm curious as to why the body that administers the 'nz' namespace >should be perceived as a controversial choice. I'm not suggesting that >they run anything, merely act as arbitrators in the event of dispute. At >least each of the members of this list and/or their employers have the >option of joining ISOCNZ and voting in a council to formulate policy. >I'd throw down the gauntlet to the members of this list to join and >change ISCONZ if they don't like how it's run. > >If ISOCNZ isn't a suitable candidate then can we hear some other >suggestions. > >I'd say the University of Waikato aren't an impartial observer in this >and the ISPs have no say in who would make up the members of an >arbitration panel from that source. > >Of course, we could form YANONZ (Yet Another Networking Organisation in >NZ) and waste even more time trying to raise funds and have meetings. > I'd agree with using ISOCNZ for this sort of thing. I think that is what it is there for. The only issue I would have with using ISOCNZ is the technical knowledge that this sort of role might require. I'm not sure that this exists in ISOCNZ at this point in time although I may be completely wrong. Perhaps what we need is something like ISOCNZ to get everyone working together. Maybe it's time we seriously build a tighter community between everyone, which hasn't existed in the past. Just don't tell the commerce commision I said that cause I doubt they would understand :) I don't want to see another networking group formed. I am sure everyone is aware of the amount of bull**** which comes from trying to do that sort of thing. Setting up committees... the continual arguments across emails... its not worth it. And everyone will end up doing their own thing because they will not have time for the politics. I think this has been shown time and time again to almost everyone on this list, at some time in their internet career. -Rowan --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Reply to field
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

I'd like to start a hopefully breif discussion of the list mechanics... I'd like to see the reply-to field utilised to only have nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz in it. So as to avoid the constant double up of messages I am sure most of us are receiving. I always try and trim out the senders name, but its easy to forget. Thoughts anyone? -Rowan PS If it's just the fact that I am using outlook express shoot me now :) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 3

Re: Reply to field
by Rowan Smith 03 Jun '98

03 Jun '98

> (a) someone @waikato has just modified the majordomo config, or > (b) Chris is doing something devious with procmail. > >I think it's probably (b) :) It is b :) See your headers below. -Rowan Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:51:27 +1200 (NZST) From: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> X-Sender: jabley(a)buddha.clear.net.nz Reply-To: Joe Abley <jabley(a)clear.co.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Reply to field In-Reply-To: <19980604183543.A24635(a)caffeine.ix.net.nz> Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980604184649.17427B-100000(a)buddha.clear.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Precedence: bulk Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1764 > >-- >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 > --------- 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: Route Policy Database/Filters
by Rowan Smith 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

I think that with local peering on the increase throughout New Zealand a RADB or similar would be extremly useful. At NZIX for instance we should all be running BGP, with filters to prevent unauthorised advertisments arriving from someone elses router. While a RADB would only be as good as the information it held and how well you could trust someone to enter data into it. It would still be better than what we have at the moment (almost nothing). I think almost everybody has had to change a metric at Waikato because someone has accidently advertised the wrong Network. I know I did it when we multi-homed a netlink customer several years ago. And I know it has happened to me serveral times. I actually remember a 4am 6 way conversation with Sandy yourself, KC and Iprolink trying to work out a OSPF routing error that turned out to be a Cisco bug, which was only preventable by adding a access-list. We don't have to invest in a server or nominate someone to maintain one, we could all use the merit radb today. The issue arrises (as you have mentioned) when we register "our" IP Addresses against our AS. Most ISPs still have legacy IP space which "belongs" to the larger /16, /15 etc that netway currently advertise, this usually comes from companies which don't want to change. I would like to have the addresses which these organisations have been allocated by Apnic (nznic at the time), routed with our AS number. And as such stored in a database with my AS so that other local bodies that I peer with may use this information to build reliable filter-lists. This would be advantageous to a company like ICONZ, where by if a major international outage occured (heaven forbid :), with our supplier then we would be able to come to some arrangement with another ISP that we peer with to use their international capacity albeit at a decreased performance level, this could be acheived simply by changing some routing filters, assuming that all the appropriate entries were in the RADB(s). Education is required to ensure that people don't think that they own a certain IP address range indefinitely. As the internet requires the addresses to be aggregated organisations need to know this, and understand why. I think that this has been shown by the recent campaign to bring the 190.xx (or what ever it was) range back into some real size perspective. -Rowan -----Original Message----- From: Arron Scott <arrons(a)netgate.net.nz> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Tuesday, 2 June 1998 17:58 Subject: Re: Route Policy Database/Filters >Hi all, > >I would be interested to know what scenarios people have for using such a >database. NetGate currently has a fairly complex routing table, and yet our >boundary routing inside New Zealand still remains fairly simple. > >I am also slightly concerned that having these entries in a database would >infer some "right of ownership" for certain address space, which would do >the concept of hierarchical routing a server disservice. From my >experience, any time someone enters a new entry in the RADB, even if it is >a "black hole" from someone elses CIDR block they feel it gives them a >right to use that given address space indefinately. We may also have to >consider asking for the right to administer sub-delegations of our APNIC >registered addresses ourselves. > >I am not against a router server, I am however keen to ensure it offers >tangible benefits to the users, and improves things for the Internet >society at large. > >Arron Scott >Telecom NZ > >At 05:03 PM 2/06/98 +1200, John Houlker wrote: >>I understand a number of ISPs in NZ would be interested in using a route >>policy database to allow communication of this information and, in >>particular, to enable automated maintenance of filters to control route >>policies. Recently we have had a Computer Science student run an informal >>survey of some ISPs on this issue and again there was an interested >>response from most; he has also been revisiting the situation in respect to >>running a database using the "Route Arbiter" code. I didn't get to the >>NZNOG meeting (perhaps this was discussed there), but could "NZNOG" >>consider this question and perhaps encourage the application of such >>coordinated controls on route information? >> >>In principle I believe the IRR could be used for such a purpose, and it may >>be good practise to load AS/route object information in there in any case >>(it is especially important for multi-homed networks), but maybe there >>should be a NZ based service for NZ information. >> >>Thoughts? >> >>John >> >> >>--------- >>To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz >>where the body of your message reads: >>unsubscribe nznog >> >> >_________________________________________________________________________ >Arron Scott Phone: ++64-9-3569687 >Service Specialist Fax: ++64-9-3794790 >Service Implementation & Management Group Cell: ++64-25-883163 >Telecom NZ Ltd eMail: arrons(a)netgate.net.nz >--------- >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

3 2

Majordomo results (fwd)
by Joe Abley 02 Jun '98

02 Jun '98

To save anybody else from bothering (and as there seems to be some interest) here are the results of a "who nznog". A motley bunch indeed :) -- 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/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 18:03:42 +1200 From: Majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz To: jabley(a)clear.co.nz Subject: Majordomo results -- >>>> who nznog Members of list 'nznog': rhicks(a)clear.co.nz jclark(a)telstra.co.nz a.scott(a)netgate.net.nz jabley(a)clear.co.nz nznog(a)netlink.co.nz tonyw(a)iconz.co.nz j.houlker(a)waikato.ac.nz sandy(a)netgate.net.nz noc(a)waikato.ac.nz OOLSSON(a)clear.co.nz rowan(a)iconz.co.nz D1NC(a)telecom.co.nz chris(a)cybernet.co.nz craig(a)laptop.iprolink.co.nz T.McGregor(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz markg(a)iprolink.co.nz Dean.Pemberton(a)natlib.govt.nz cthorpe(a)team.xtra.co.nz 18 subscribers >>>> --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0