- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

APRICOT 2014 - Remote Participation Registration
by Elly Tawhai 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

Hi NZNOG Community, I hope you are all looking forward to APRICOT 2014 which will start next week. The Workshops are from Tuesday, 18 to Saturday, 22 February 2014 and the Conference is from Monday, 24 to Friday, 28 February 2014. If you are unable to attend in person, you can still join the conference remotely. Some of the conference sessions will be broadcasted live. Please refer to the program for more information. http://2014.apricot.net/program Please note: Registration is now *mandatory* to watch the live webcast and participate remotely. Registration is free and you can register now to receive your login details https://apnic.ungerboeck.com/prod/emc00/register.aspx?OrgCode=10&EvtID=5824… I hope to see you all in person or online at APRICOT 2014. Regards APNIC Secretariat

1 0

Re: [nznog] Validating resolvers for DNS and DNSSEC
by Pete Mundy 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

Straight after the conference, I enabled validation on a resolver that handles in excess of 2 million queries/day. So far I have no negative impact to report either :) I support Andy & Dean's comments. Just turn it on already! Pete Mundy Wearer of Many Hats On 11/02/2014, at 12:20 PM, Dean Pemberton <nznog(a)deanpemberton.com> wrote: > Dave Mill (Inspire) stood up at NZNOG and clearly said that for them > that never happened. > > Just turn it on. > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Nathan Ward <nznog(a)daork.net> wrote: >> [SNIP] >> I've been talking about this with one of my customers recently, and there's >> a concern by some that turning on validation will trip false positives - >> which for an ISP is a bad thing to do - all the customer sees is that you >> 'don't work' while the other ISP does. >> >> Is there public data available re. this? Does it likely vary much for NZ? >> [SNIP] >> Nathan Ward

3 2

Technical Advisor, Harmful Digital Communications Bill
by Susan Chalmers 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

Hello NZNOG, I am developing InternetNZ's submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. I'd like to ask this list for some feedback on one issue in the Bill, in particular. Clause 15 of the Bill reads: Technical advisers - (1)A District Court or the High Court, as the case may be, may appoint a technical adviser to assist it in considering and determining an application for an order under section 17 or any appeal under section 72 of the District Courts Act 1947. (2)The duties of a technical adviser are-- - (a)to sit with the court; and - (b)subject to subsection (3), to act in all respects as an extra member of the court. (3)The court must appoint a technical adviser if the court is considering an application for an order under section 17(2)(a) or (b) or (3)(a). (4)The Judge may give any weight to the technical adviser's advice that the Judge thinks fit, and the Judge alone must determine the application or appeal. (5)The Minister must maintain a panel of persons who may be appointed under this section as technical advisers, and only persons named on the panel may be appointed under this section as technical advisers. (6)The chief executive must pay technical advisers the remuneration and allowances determined from time to time by the Minister. - For reference, the remedies referred to in cl 15(3) are: takedown of content/disabling access thereto; identification of an anonymous author; and, somewhat strangely, making an order against parties not before the court. *What I am after in the first instance relates to the advice of the technical advisor. * *If the advisor were to issue a report of some sort to the judge, explaining the impact - economic, administrative, technical - of a takedown order on the intermediary, what do you think that advice should cover? * How can this advice, if it were published, serve as evidence for policymakers in the future, helping them avoid making remedies (takedown orders, etc) that are a burden to intermediaries or have a negative technical impact? FWIW, I think that 17(2)(c) and (d) orders - publishing corrections and providing rights of reply - should also be considered in technical advice. There are of course, many different flavours of intermediaries. The OECD has categorised intermediaries in the following way: 1. ISPs (carriers) 2. hosting providers 3. search engines 4. e-commerce intermediaries 5. Internet payment systems, and 6. participative web platforms http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/science-and-technology… For the purposes of the Bill, we can consider intermediaries in two broad categories - content hosts and IPAPs (functionally - the IPAP language is not in the Bill, but I believe that IPAPs (meaning carriers in their IP-matching function) could be read into the current definition of "online content host" in the interpretation section). Thanks to those interested for your time and consideration, and please pose questions if you have them. I'd be grateful for your feedback by COB Friday. Sincerely, Susan -- --- Susan Chalmers Senior Policy Advisor susan(a)internetnz.net.nz

1 0

References/Recommendations for IP & VoIP in USA
by Christoph Berthoud 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

Morning all, We have an office in the US (Los Angeles) and I'm having issues with our current internet provider and are looking to change. Does anyone from NZNOG have any references/recommendations they could give me for a supplier in LA that can provide decent IP & SIP trunk services? Replies off-list much appreciated :) -- Thanks Christoph

1 0

Cisco Routers 3/4G connections.
by Laurence Bullivant 11 Feb '14

11 Feb '14

Afternoon, This is a reach out for anyone else using Cisco881g / Cisco887vag routers with 3G backup. We have just started getting the new routers into stock that use the new cellular modems. Our normal connection scripts don't work any more and we have been unable to find the required connection details for either vodafone or telecom connections. I am hoping in exchange for BEER, someone out there has worked it out. (We have a pending case with TAC but I hope this will be faster). Currently we are using: ----------------------------------------------------- *chat-script gsm "" "ATDT*99#" TIMEOUT 30 CONNECT!controller Cellular 0!interface Cellular0 ip address negotiated ip nat outside ip virtual-reassembly in ip virtual-reassembly out encapsulation slip dialer in-band dialer string gsm dialer-group 1 async mode interactive!interface Vlan1 ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 ip nat inside ip virtual-reassembly!ip nat inside source list 1 interface Cellular0 overloadip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Cellular0!access-list 1 permit anydialer-list 1 protocol ip permit!line 3 exec-timeout 0 0 script dialer gsm modem InOut no exec transport preferred none transport output none* ----------------------------------------------------- The issue is that the dial script always times out. Hopefully this is all recognizable to someone who has gone though the same pain as we are. Thanks in advance. -Laurence laurence(a)bullivant.co.nz

3 3

Call for NZ Provider
by Daniel Watson 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

Gday Noggers, I am currently seeking any NZ providers whom would meet the following requirements, Being able to rent dedicated servers at reasonable market pricing, Being able to provide us with a /24 IPv4 Being able to set up a Vyatta VM to act as our router via a direct BGP session to said provider If you can meet these requirements, I am eger to meet you :D Please respond off-list if you can meet this requirement Regards, Daniel Watson Network Administrator / Network Operations Manager E Daniel(a)GloVine.com.au W www.GloVine.com.au "No trees were harmed in the making of this email, however a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."

1 0

Validating resolvers for DNS and DNSSEC
by Andy Linton 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

At the recent NZNOG meeting in Nelson, Geoff Huston from APNIC gave a talk on DNSSEC and had some interesting statistics about the use of validating resolvers for DNS and DNSSEC. For DNSSEC to work there are two parts of the equation that need to happen: 1) People need to sign their zones 2) People need to ask the question "is this zone signed" etc. I want to talk about 2) Geoff noted that a number of countries that we might not expect to be high on the list of those validating the responses using the DNSSEC technology were way ahead of the rest of the world. I haven't got the exact numbers here - I expect his presentation will appear shortly and there's likely to be a video of it at some stage at http://www.r2.co.nz/20140130/ - but from memory the global average is about 7% usage of validating resolvers. New Zealand is a dismal <2% and I'd like to challenge you all to do something about that. And we're way behind the Australians.... Geoff pointed out that the high rate elsewhere is due to a large degree to the number of people using Google's Public DNS servers and while that looks attractive and an easy way to improve those numbers I'd ask you not to go down that path. You need to do this yourself (or at least as close as possible to the end user). If you use someone else's resolver then your traffic can be intercepted en route to the validating resolver => man in the middle attack => game over. And of course, handing this data over to a centralised collection agent makes the work of anyone who wants to snoop on you much, much easier. It's not about Google's servers - this applies equally to public servers run by anyone. DNSSEC validation is not real validation unless it's performed end to end or at least as close as possible to that. A number of NZ ISPs provide this service to their customers with their in house resolvers and those of you who don't should really be looking at when you will do this. Those people who have signed their zones are making assertions about how they want their DNS data to be interpreted. They're saying that unless you validate their DNS data they really don't want you to connect to them. You should be taking notice of this. But then maybe you just ignore broken certs on websites etc. So what should you do? End user ======= Check here - http://dnssec.vs.uni-due.de/ Or use - https://www.dnssec-validator.cz/ Ask your ISP/admins to fix this. ISPs/Enterprise ============ If you're running a resolver for customers do the work to get it validating, please.... Plenty of info out there on how to do this for Bind and Unbound and I'm no Windows expert but this looks straightforward: Windows: http://info.menandmice.com/blog/bid/88297/Windows-2012-Server-Enabling-DNSS…

11 17

NZNOG 2014 Videos
by Richard Naylor 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

Before I get spammed to death about the videos.... We got back to base on Wednesday night, late. We got the tapes on friday and have been processing over the week end. Its pretty well all edited. One node ran out of disk last night and so is repeating today. Uploading is a slow process as the addition of HD footage added at least 200% more data. Thats why I asked if HD was of interest. (Its distribution grade HD rather than the higher bit-rate contribution HD) As we do the upload, we're also doing an idiot check on files, web pages etc, so there may be some reruns. But I expect that we should have it all available by the end of this week. We have another job starting tomorrow, which also consumes our evenings, so theres a bit of a time squeeze going on. I'll update the list when the files are available. rich

1 0

Re: [nznog] Validating resolvers for DNS and DNSSEC
by Richard Naylor 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

At 11:35 a.m. 11/02/2014, Andy Linton wrote: >At the recent NZNOG meeting in Nelson, Geoff Huston from APNIC gave >a talk on DNSSEC and had some interesting statistics about the use >of validating resolvers for DNS and DNSSEC. <snip> >and there's likely to be a video of it at some stage at ><http://www.r2.co.nz/20140130/>http://www.r2.co.nz/20140130/ - but >from memory the global average is about 7% usage of validating resolvers. The video is available at http://www.r2.co.nz/20140130/geoff-h.htm The others are rendering and uploading. The recording is large and currently filling the CDN cache, so if it doesn't play well - wait - its a large file. As an option there is an HD version. Its a large file also (>1GB) so takes even longer to load and requires a decent CPU to play back. Dual-core or better. Feedback on the value of HD footage would be interesting. Its slowing down the render and upload process, so if its not of much value, we can speed things up. The other videos should be available in a day or so. Richard

1 0

Reviews of Conference bridges that work well over multiple varied speeds
by Alexander Neilson 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

Little bit off topic so Beer However we have been asked to deliver a Video Teleconference Bridge in our system for customers whose speeds and connectivity vary (ADSL1, ADSL2, VDSL, Radio, Fibre, UFB) and so I am looking for anyones experiences with conference bridge hardware that can take connections from customers who may be using any of these connections into our network and that is smart enough to remux the video / audio streams out to cater to the connection speeds available. If anyone has any history with such a device I would love to hear about it off list. Preferring devices that will have a master bridge inside our core with good monitoring and management and easy to use remote units that are also reliable (remote customers make for hard trips to work on) however any relevant information would be appreciated. (I am arguing for on topic ish due to the handling of different grade customer connections across the network) Regards Alexander Alexander Neilson Neilson Productions Limited alexander(a)neilson.net.nz 021 329 681 022 456 2326

3 2