On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Andy Linton wrote:
I still stand by my earlier posting - moaning in this forum will not solve the problem. The discussions will need to be between APNIC, Telecom and those who have address blocks in this space with perhaps someone like InternetNZ to help broker a solution.
But at the end of the day if you want your name in the registry against a block of numbers, either the ones you currently use or some new block, expect to pay. If you can't stand that particular piece of heat, get out of the kitchen.
From what I see, and Don Kendrick, the TNZ IP Resource Manager has said, nobody is losing their networks, Telecom is not reclaiming
I agree with Andy that NZNOG is probably not the appropriate forum to discuss this problem, with the exception that APNIC people do lurk here and would be available for discussion on this topic next year at the conference. However: I'm actually a little bit lost as to what the problem is. them, and he does not intend for it to go that way and it has been acknowledged they are 'swamp' space. It appears to be somewhat a knee-jerk reaction to WHOIS changes as a result of: 1) APNIC's new WHOIS Privacy Policy, documented in this FAQ: http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/privacy-faq.html Whereby all reassignment information has been marked private, and the supernets are all that are visible. Don has stated that he is attempting to make the information visible again (for many reasons, but I'm sure at the very least the number of abuse reports he'll get is now exponentially higher!). 2) Due to 1), Telecom has had to ask for all maintainer objects to be transferred to NZTELECOM in order to make these delegations 'un-private'. Whether they subsequently get redelegated back into the appropriate person's mnt object has not been made clear. Either way, people have a few options: 1) Work with Telecom and/or APNIC directly to resolve the situation. I'm personally not worried about it being a problem. 2) Obtain their own APNIC membership and assignment. I have seen companies receive /24s for multihoming directly from APNIC. 3) Talk to APNIC about the 'no questions asked' assignment policy. 4) Face reality, do the internet routing table a favor, and go for PA space. Recent conversations on cisco-nsp and NANOG about prefix bloat and their impact on routers with 'only' 256M of memory have been very interesting. Perhaps Don could clarify whether he will re-assign information back into the appropriate maintainer objects, and someone from APNIC (Nurani? I know you lurk on the list..) could discuss why they are not choosing to treat these networks as swamp space, or at the very least ensure that networks in these /16s are clearly designated as PORTABLE space. In fact, the bottom /20 of 202.27/16 isn't even assigned to an NZ company, if my memory serves me correctly. For the most part, I think Telecom have done a pretty good job of looking after the status quo of these legacy NZGate networks. aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706