Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
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.
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
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. 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
Hi, On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Craig Anderson wrote:
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.
Craig, all of the recent (post 1996) RFCs and IETF drafts that I have seen make it clear that address portability is inconsistent with having a routable Internet. The regional registries all have policies to reduce route table fragmentation by migrating organisations to provider addressing. I think Joe pretty much assumed that ISPs were aware of the potential problems with portability. If any of the major upstream providers of the New Zealand providers begin to filter small advertisements (say, smaller than /20) then a lot of NZ organisations with "portable" addresses could potentially be cut off from the rest of the world. You can be sure that many of these small routes are not carried globally and only have connectivity because the origin of the supernet routes gets the traffic close enough to a provider that doesn't filter. These small routes are filtered because they would otherwise clog the memory and CPU of routers carrying a "full table". This affects overall Internet stability.
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.
Perhaps.
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.
See above.
6) Neither Telecom's (alleged) ideas nor the draft's suggestions fit accepted international practice for historically assigned IP addresses.
Could you point me at some info on this "accepted international practice"?
-jamie
--
Jamie Clark
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 10:36:28AM +1300, Craig Anderson wrote:
I must say i'm slightly confused about the rationale here. Has Telecom issued a "renumber or move to us decree"?
Not formally, as far as I understand, but informally these things have happened (as was reported in the press recently after the issue was raised by Clearview).
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 hope that the operator community can come to an agreement about how these
addresses should be handled without having to resort to lawyers or politicians
(or any other form of proxy shouting and handwaving).
It's in everybody's interests to clean up this issue. The end-user shouldn't
hear conflicting stories about whether her network numbers are portable or
not; it makes things cleaner if we can cut down the number of long-prefix
routes flying about the country (and we will avoid any future problems from
prefix-length filtering, as is now commonplace in Europe).
Taking the millstone of documenting and accounting for the NZGATE address
blocks off Telecom's neck is in their interests as well, as the current
situation _cannot_ bode well for any future applications they might make
to APNIC.
Straw poll: _is_ this a good forum for straightening this out? Are people
interested in doing so? Or should we really leave it to someone like ISOCNZ
to sort out?
Perhaps we need some lubrication to iron out the finer points. Anybody fancy
a trip to Galbraith's on Friday evening? I will stand one drink for anybody
prepared to agree with me on the list :) :)
Joe
--
Joe Abley
Straw poll: _is_ this a good forum for straightening this out? Are people interested in doing so? Or should we really leave it to someone like ISOCNZ to sort out?
God no - Lets work it out here. I dislike certain aspects about the domain handling that ISOCNZ has done, but most of all I hate that it was done behind closed doors. Out in the open is best and in the end the people on this list seem to be some of the most qualifed to make such suggestions
Perhaps we need some lubrication to iron out the finer points. Anybody fancy a trip to Galbraith's on Friday evening? I will stand one drink for anybody prepared to agree with me on the list :) :)
I agree that some lubrication is needed, and I've posted it to the list. Please send drink in sealed container to the address below =) Dean -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Pemberton Ph: +61-3-9656-7000 Regional Technical Specialist Asia-Pacific Fx: +61-3-9656-7003 Ascend Communications, Inc Mb: +61-419-117-321 Lvl 38, ANZ Tower, 55 Collins St Melbourne, AUS mailto:dpemberton(a)ascend.com.au ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 05:32:06PM +1300, Joe Abley wrote:
Straw poll: _is_ this a good forum for straightening this out? Are people interested in doing so? Or should we really leave it to someone like ISOCNZ to sort out?
No - here is a far better place to deal with it, or at the very least, attempt to do so. I seriously doubt non-technical people are going to be able to address these issues properly anyhow, not at least without some considerable effort on the part of someone technical. I think those ISOCNZ members who are most technically inclined are on this list anyhow... not that I particularly think this is an ISOCNZ issue, or should be. -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Straw poll: _is_ this a good forum for straightening this out? Are people interested in doing so? Or should we really leave it to someone like ISOCNZ to sort out?
Hmmmm I've just had a couple more people ask where they can participate in this discussion. I'm a little reluctant to tell them ``NZNOG and here is how you join....'' Do we want to do this here or would another place be better. On the other hand, it looks like it's picking up steam, so it will happen somewhere. Dean --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:25:32PM +1000, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Straw poll: _is_ this a good forum for straightening this out? Are people interested in doing so? Or should we really leave it to someone like ISOCNZ to sort out?
Hmmmm I've just had a couple more people ask where they can participate in this discussion.
I'm a little reluctant to tell them ``NZNOG and here is how you join....'' Do we want to do this here or would another place be better. On the other hand, it looks like it's picking up steam, so it will happen somewhere.
It's a public forum -- it's not a cartel of any kind (tm) :)
Tell them to come on in -- and tell them that the archives are at
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/
--
Joe Abley
It's a public forum -- it's not a cartel of any kind (tm) :)
no worries - we wouldn't want to be accused of beging monopolistic. Oh on a completely unrelated topic - have you all seen http://www.newsroom.co.nz/stories/PO9810/S00226.htm =) Dean (I'm not stiring - I'm just fostering healthy conversation) --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:45:32PM +1000, Dean Pemberton wrote:
A quick check of our calls database here tends to indicate telecom are making truck loads of money because many business are calling up and using the 'net, 8 hours a day - which means telecom bills them an additional $400/month (5c/minute, 8 hours a day, 20 days a month). Sure, as far as residential calls go, they loose out, but on the whole I think they win, since they don't make that much off residential calls anyhow. A long time ago, someone advocated everyone putting ACLs on their routers to lock out Xtra, which seemed really drastic and excessive at the time, because there we other avenues to try first. Since then, much has transpired, the Commerce Commission won't and probably can't do anything (our laws are inadequate) and Maurice Williamson has become the minister of sitting on his arse looking stupid, or perhaps he just owns lots of telecom stock. I won;t start with the LTSA or any of the hundreds of other grievances people have. I'm sure I'm not the only one who now wonders just how refusing to co-operate with Xtra would worked out... -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:25:32PM +1000, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Hmmmm I've just had a couple more people ask where they can participate in this discussion.
This is a really good point I've been meaning to bring up - nznog isn't very representative of network operators in NZ, and I think we should be encouraging more people to join. Certainly, this will tend to increase the S/N ratio, but its surely of benefit to have more people affected by realted issues involved with them at an early stage? -cw --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
Joe Abley wrote:
Perhaps we need some lubrication to iron out the finer points. Anybody fancy a trip to Galbraith's on Friday evening? I will stand one drink for anybody prepared to agree with me on the list :) :)
I agree that you buying me a beer would be a fine thing. Ching! One more BCU in the bank, I believe. -- 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
participants (6)
-
Andy Linton -
Chris Wedgwood -
craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz -
Dean Pemberton -
Jamie Clark -
Joe Abley