My post triggered a few updates to come through which are now all complete. To be clear I am only updating the list when I receive information from the organisation itself. At this stage I am: -Not removing organisation that I don't think exist any more - I might be wrong -Generally not removing old staff members unless I have concrete evidence they have moved on -Not removing organisations that have been recently acquired - they might still want their original listing on the list I do fully support us either automating this list somewhat, or just suggesting people use PeeringDB instead. Hint, now is a good time to either update your peeringDB entries or even just add your organisation for the first time. Cheers Dave On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Dave Mill wrote:

I completely agree.

We had this discussion about a year or so ago on this list and the general consensus was:

-People should use peeringDB -And we should automate the NZNOG noc list - which we received offers from people to do

However, nothing has changed since.

So, if someone still wants to try and automate our NOC list then feel free (I think Nathan offered ages ago). In the meantime I action updates I receive when I get around to it (typically a 1 hour to 1 month turn around). I have no known updates that I'm sitting on at the moment.

Cheers Dave

(NZNOG trustee and NOC list updatererer)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote:

...

Hi all; was looking something up for a client and noticed the Noc list here;

http://www.nznog.org/noc-list

- could do with some updating.

Voyager is missing, other things I know to be wrong are that several of the Noc's listed have been subsumed into larger orgs.

-Joel

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

PeeringDB is the best way forward.

Great theory until you try to update your records and they don't believe you for whatever reason and refuse to enter into any dialogue to resolve the issue! The exact quote was: Brad, I'm not in th mood to discuss our policy. Like it or leave it.

On Fri, 26 May 2017 13:31:10 +1200, Jonathan Brewer wrote:

An NZ-specific NOC list is not all that useful anymore.

For contrast, I quite like having a local list so we're not dependent on PeeringDB (which is not to say I think people shouldn't update PeeringDB, it's still useful). The Internet is all about decentralisation after all. For some reason it doesn't look like you can query PeeringDB for networks in in a particular country (only Exchanges and Facilities), which I suspect makes automating a list of NZ operators oddly complicated to achieve. -- Michael

Hi, I think the intersection of networks who should be listed on a NOC list and networks but who don’t (and are unlikely to ever) peer is around 3, and of those networks I suspect that all of them already have relationships with their customers for issues. If you want your info to be available, perhaps post it on your website. Additionally, I don’t believe you need to peer to be in PeeringDB.

On 27/05/2017, at 5:44 PM, Peter Ensor wrote:

The advantage of this list http://www.nznog.org/noc-list http://www.nznog.org/noc-list is that companies like Ultrafast Fibre can be listed whereas UFF won't be in the peering dB because we don't peer.

There will be other LFCs and perhaps other networks that people may wish to contact that won't be in the peering db.

Hence my vote is for the noc-list.

Cheers, Peter Ensor | Chief Architect Ultrafast Fibre T +64 (7) 8503880 M +64 (21) 02502772 E Peter.Ensor(a)ultrafast.co.nz mailto:Peter.Ensor(a)ultrafast.co.nz W ultrafastfibre.co.nz http://ultrafastfibre.co.nz/

Attention: This e-mail message is intended for the intended recipient only and it may contain Ultrafast Fibre Limited confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost if this email has been delivered to the wrong recipient. If you have received this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify Ultrafast Fibre Limited. You must not disclose, copy or relay any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not Ultrafast Fibre Limited. This email has been checked for viruses. However, Ultrafast Fibre Limited makes no warranty that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or other conditions which may damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The recipient relies on its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and of opening any attachments.

-----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Michael Fincham Sent: Friday, 26 May 2017 5:21 p.m. To: nznog Subject: Re: [nznog] Reminder to update noc contact list/details

On Fri, 26 May 2017 13:31:10 +1200, Jonathan Brewer wrote:

...

An NZ-specific NOC list is not all that useful anymore.

For contrast, I quite like having a local list so we're not dependent on PeeringDB (which is not to say I think people shouldn't update PeeringDB, it's still useful). The Internet is all about decentralisation after all.

For some reason it doesn't look like you can query PeeringDB for networks in in a particular country (only Exchanges and Facilities), which I suspect makes automating a list of NZ operators oddly complicated to achieve.

-- Michael _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Maybe a function where someone could 'Report Incorrect Data' that then triggers an email off to the contact and if they don't respond in a timely manner flag the entry as out of date or possibly even remove it from being public until it is located. Another though is an automated process where each company needs to log-in and verify the data once every 6 months and if not once again. Entry removes from public display until it is verified. Nathan Brookfield Chief Executive Officer Simtronic Technologies Pty Ltd http://www.simtronic.com.au On 28 May 2017, at 11:47, Matthew Moyle-Croft mailto:mmc(a)mmc.com.au> wrote: Hi, NOC lists are useful if people believe the data is accurate and upto date. What’s worse is when people no longer feel they can trust it (either contacts have changed, companies gone out of business, been bought etc). I’d love to see a few simple changes to the NZNOG list: - a link to a peeringdb entry if one exists - a date when an entry was updated - even a “marked current at <x date>" - potential comment on whether this entry is upto date or not - (eg. may have been merged with <x> or something similar). MMC On 27 May 2017, at 4:37 AM, Nathan Ward mailto:nznog(a)daork.net> wrote: Hi, I think the intersection of networks who should be listed on a NOC list and networks but who don’t (and are unlikely to ever) peer is around 3, and of those networks I suspect that all of them already have relationships with their customers for issues. If you want your info to be available, perhaps post it on your website. Additionally, I don’t believe you need to peer to be in PeeringDB. On 27/05/2017, at 5:44 PM, Peter Ensor mailto:Peter.Ensor(a)ultrafast.co.nz> wrote: The advantage of this list http://www.nznog.org/noc-list is that companies like Ultrafast Fibre can be listed whereas UFF won't be in the peering dB because we don't peer. There will be other LFCs and perhaps other networks that people may wish to contact that won't be in the peering db. Hence my vote is for the noc-list. Cheers, Peter Ensor | Chief Architect Ultrafast Fibre T +64 (7) 8503880 M +64 (21) 02502772 E Peter.Ensor(a)ultrafast.co.nzmailto:Peter.Ensor(a)ultrafast.co.nz W ultrafastfibre.co.nzhttp://ultrafastfibre.co.nz/ ________________________________ Attention: This e-mail message is intended for the intended recipient only and it may contain Ultrafast Fibre Limited confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost if this email has been delivered to the wrong recipient. If you have received this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify Ultrafast Fibre Limited. You must not disclose, copy or relay any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not Ultrafast Fibre Limited. This email has been checked for viruses. However, Ultrafast Fibre Limited makes no warranty that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or other conditions which may damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The recipient relies on its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and of opening any attachments. ________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nzmailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Michael Fincham Sent: Friday, 26 May 2017 5:21 p.m. To: nznog Subject: Re: [nznog] Reminder to update noc contact list/details On Fri, 26 May 2017 13:31:10 +1200, Jonathan Brewer mailto:jon.brewer(a)gmail.com> wrote:

An NZ-specific NOC list is not all that useful anymore.

For contrast, I quite like having a local list so we're not dependent on PeeringDB (which is not to say I think people shouldn't update PeeringDB, it's still useful). The Internet is all about decentralisation after all. For some reason it doesn't look like you can query PeeringDB for networks in in a particular country (only Exchanges and Facilities), which I suspect makes automating a list of NZ operators oddly complicated to achieve. -- Michael _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nzmailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nzmailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nzmailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz https://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Hi all Just to prod this thread again. During late May and early June a whole lot of updates, removals and additions to the noc-list came through. I had mad dreams of tidying up the HTML (take a look, its nasty) and also linking to peeringDB records but one month on I hadn't gotten around to it. As of today, all known changes to the list are complete. I haven't replied to all of you - there were quite a few changes. It seems in general that a lot of people still appreciate the noc-list but in general if a network actively peers USE PEERINGDB :) If anyone feels like: -cleaning up the html -supplying html with (valid) peeringdb links included -attempting contact with entries we believe are long-dead -or otherwise improving the quality of the list Then please make contact with me (make contact first to save duplication of work). I actually have some code that now pulls details from peeringDB but am only using it internally at Inspire right now. We can't easily give people direct access to changing the noc-list at the moment. I can however paste HTML really well :) Cheers Dave On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:

On Sun, 28 May 2017, Nathan Brookfield wrote:

...

Maybe a function where someone could 'Report Incorrect Data' that then triggers an email off to the contact and if they don't respond in a timely manner flag the entry as out of date or possibly even remove it from being public until it is located.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure many of the companies no longer exist (ie closed or merged with other companies). Some of them over 5 years ago. Scanning the list most of the following are gone/merged:

Actrix, Black Albatross, Digiweb, Global Gateway, igrin, ihug, iprolink, Maxnet/callplus/orcon/FX/Wise, morenet, Now NZ, planB/Turnstone, Splice, supra, switchsource, unifone, Whoosh, ZeroOne

also Voyager is missing.

-- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.simonlyall.com/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar

Hi, Some of you may be heading to NANOG 71 in September on the west coast of the US, in which case you might be interested in also attending the DNA OARC meeting just before NANOG. Geoff Call For Presentations The DNS-OARC 27th Workshop will take place in San Jose, CA, USA on September 29th and 30th 2017, the Friday and Saturday preceding NANOG 71. The Workshop's Program Committee is now requesting proposals for presentations. All DNS-related subjects are welcome. If you are an OARC Member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we can accommodate those talks during the Members Only session on the morning of September 29th. A timeslot will also be available for lightning talks (5-10 minutes) on Saturday September 30th, for which submissions will be accepted during Friday 29th. Workshop Milestones: 26 May 2017, Call for Presentations posted and open for submissions 28 July 2017, Deadline for submission 11 August 2017, Draft Programme published 01 September 2017, Final Program published 15 September 2017, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for presentation submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/27/call-for-abstracts/ The workshop presentations will be organized by common themes, depending on the topics and the timing of each presentation. There are 30-minute and 15-minute slots, let us know your preference in your submission. To allow the Programme Committee to make objective assessments of submissions, so as to ensure the quality of the workshop, submissions SHOULD include slides. Draft slides are acceptable on submission. If you have questions or concerns you can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via for the OARC Programme Committee OARC depends on sponsorship to fund its workshops and associated social events. Please contact if your organization is interested in becoming a sponsor. (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.)