Erin Salmon wrote:

I am of the view that while discussion of layers 1-5 has, and should continue to represent the cornerstone of discussion on this list, s92a is a very relevant topic at present, and this is a good medium to discuss it. Various such not-quite-operational topics come along fairly often, and I don’t think they should be banned. I invite people to use subject lines that accurately reflect the content of their discussions, and for people not interested to simply not read anything with a boring-looking title.

I agree. And I think dealing with copyright issues will be very operational, if the pro-92A lobby get their way ;-) Last week I couldn't spell "ISP" and now I are one. ~mark

InternetNZ can have the job of looking after such things. I am on those lists too, but I don't allow them to pop up on my desktop and interrupt what I'm doing, like I do with NZNOG. -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [mailto:asjl(a)lpnz.org] Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 12:07 p.m. To: jon.brewer(a)araneo.net.nz Cc: NZNOG List Subject: Re: [nznog] NZNOG & Discussion Topics On 12/03/2009, at 11:41 , Jonathan Brewer wrote:

Hi Folks,

For the health and happiness of users of this list, could we perhaps keep discussions to OSI Layer 5-1?

So who'll get the job of looking after process that examines whether people get cut off because a particular IP address downloaded X at time Y? You can be sure it won't be the sales, marketing, legal, HR, finance people in your organisations! By the way, if we allow only Layers 5-1 in this forum, then we'd remove all mail, web and other application nonsense. Fine by me! andy

Dean Pemberton wrote:

Yep - can't let those updates from the NZRR go by without immediate action =)

I decided to post those NZRR updates to nznog a long time ago when I was at CityLink. My logic was that changes to routes being announced at the NZ Internet Exchanges were of operational interest. If no one cares or there's a better forum or the format should be changed or ... then I'm sure CityLink would like to hear.

Even 8yr old email client Outlook Express can filter incoming mail based on subject, content, etc... If you don't like the NZRR updates, filter them. If you don't like hearing anything about s92a, filter it. There are plenty of rocket scientists around to help if you need it ;) Jeremy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Lawson IT Consultant This message and/or any attached documents may contain Privileged and Confidential Information and should only be read by those persons for whom this message is intended. Other than where expressly stated to the contrary, the contents of this e-mail and/or any attached document(s) are not intended to be relied upon by any person. If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately and remove all evidence of it. 2009/3/13 Joe Abley :

On 12 Mar 2009, at 16:42, Gerard Creamer wrote:

...

I think Dean was swiping at Jon's comment, not the NZRR updates. The NZRR updates are useful and clearly operational, I don't think anyone would want them discontinued.

I have them procmailed to /dev/null (I don't have access to any routers in NZ these days), so I don't find them objectionable.

Before I did that, though, I occasionally wished that there was some kind of reports(a)nznog.org list that things like the NZRR updates (and maybe the various BGP reports, etc) would go to, leaving the main list the exclusive domain of alleged humans (and giving those who are mainly interested in non-robot talk the option of not seeing it).

While I'm posting about non-operational meta-nznog nonsense, I might also mention that having a separate list for non-operational meta- nanog nonsense worked quite well, from my perspective, at NANOG. It appeared by accident as fallout from the community uprising that spawned the new NANOG charter, but it turned out to be useful as a general target for non-op chatter about NANOG. All the messages in this thread which are mainly debating whether 143s9 is worth debating could easily happen on such a list, and the operational signal on the main list would increase.

It's much easier to accept being told "talk about that thing on this other list" than "stop talking altogether" in my experience.

Just thinking aloud.

Joe

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

Hi, On 12/03/2009 7:32, "Joe Abley" wrote: [...]

Just so long as everybody remembers that the point of NZNOG is to help operators, not to cause them to have to do more work. Anything that can realistically hope to help with the latter without getting in the way of the former ought to be worthy of consideration, regardless of whether it has universal appeal.

In that spirit I'll repeat my suggestion for the update messages to include diffs. I don't know what software is being run but if it's the RIPE database software then the update processor can be told to produce diffs in the notification messages it sends. If it's a different database then I'm fairly sure it's quite easy to plug in. I just know that knowing what the change is is probably a dead useful feature. http://www.ripe.net/db/news/update-changes-200410.html (see item #3) Cheers, Leo

On 13/03/2009, at 16:31 , Leo Vegoda wrote:

In that spirit I'll repeat my suggestion for the update messages to include diffs.

I don't know what software is being run but if it's the RIPE database software then the update processor can be told to produce diffs in the notification messages it sends. If it's a different database then I'm fairly sure it's quite easy to plug in. I just know that knowing what the change is is probably a dead useful feature.

http://www.ripe.net/db/news/update-changes-200410.html

The back end is IRRD. The NZRR requirements are simple and running the RIPE code simply got too hard. A good suggestion about the diffs and I know it's been asked for before. CityLink and I are planning to do some updates/changes to the software soon so that people can submit diffs as well as get them in the output etc. If you have any burning requirements let me know and I'll feed it into the mix. Joe's idea of a separate list has some merit - again let me know directly and I'll come back to the list with results. andy

Leo Vegoda wrote:

Hi,

On 12/03/2009 7:32, "Joe Abley" wrote:

[...]

...

Just so long as everybody remembers that the point of NZNOG is to help operators, not to cause them to have to do more work. Anything that can realistically hope to help with the latter without getting in the way of the former ought to be worthy of consideration, regardless of whether it has universal appeal.

In that spirit I'll repeat my suggestion for the update messages to include diffs.

I don't know what software is being run but if it's the RIPE database software then the update processor can be told to produce diffs in the notification messages it sends. If it's a different database then I'm fairly sure it's quite easy to plug in. I just know that knowing what the change is is probably a dead useful feature.

http://www.ripe.net/db/news/update-changes-200410.html

(see item #3)

I filter all the NZRR mail through a script I wrote that provides diffs, and annotates various parts of the message to make it more easy to read. I don't redistribute this anywhere, but if Andy wants I can dig the script out and give it to him. Instead of a seperate list for the NZRR mail, using mailman's "topic"'s might be more appropriate. Each user can select which subset of topics they want to subscribe to. We could even have an "xtra-whining" topic, that mail that matches a regex such as /xtra.*mail/i automatically gets filtered into that people can also unsubscribe from <grin>

A side question - has anyone seen any work on just how long a person must be disconnected for, should they be found "guilty"? Is it permanent or would switching them off and straight back on be enough? Not a Vodafone question - just curiosity. Paul Brislen External Communications Manager Vodafone New Zealand 021 721 337 -----Original Message----- From: andrew(a)borg.co.nz [mailto:andrew(a)borg.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 13 March 2009 8:25 a.m. To: 'Andy Linton' Cc: 'NZNOG List' Subject: Re: [nznog] NZNOG & Discussion Topics Not only that but the burden of proof should always be on the accuser and in this case the record industry. Who is to say that someone was not using the connection either unlawfully such as could be the case if someone has an open/unsecured wireless network (or even a secured one with smart neighbors). In addition to this I know of plenty of ways of passing traffic thru someone else's router/connection and in fact we recently had a issue where a schools IT team had allowed external traffic to be passed thru their proxy server and this was exploited extensively by people in China. There are also too many opportunities for this piece of legislation to be abused and is going to cause problems rather than resolve them. Another matter is that the police get paid for their work, lawyers get paid as do judges and all court staff. Government get paid and electronic forensics get paid. So why should ISP's be forced to donate their time and act on accusations that will result in a reduction of turnover to the benefit of other profit making organizations? Regards Andrew NOTE: This is just my view and in no way representative of my company or any association I belong to. -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [mailto:asjl(a)lpnz.org] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:07 PM To: jon.brewer(a)araneo.net.nz Cc: NZNOG List Subject: Re: [nznog] NZNOG & Discussion Topics On 12/03/2009, at 11:41 , Jonathan Brewer wrote:

Hi Folks,

For the health and happiness of users of this list, could we perhaps keep discussions to OSI Layer 5-1?

So who'll get the job of looking after process that examines whether people get cut off because a particular IP address downloaded X at time Y? You can be sure it won't be the sales, marketing, legal, HR, finance people in your organisations! By the way, if we allow only Layers 5-1 in this forum, then we'd remove all mail, web and other application nonsense. Fine by me! andy _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1994 - Release Date: 03/11/09 08:28:00 _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Vodafone New Zealand Limited.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Spiro Harvey wrote:

The act uses the phrase "terminating accounts," not "disconnecting."

Terminating sounds pretty terminal to me.

Good point. That would see pretty much to rule out libraries and other public access points having to take any action whatsoever, as long as they don't have any sort of registration or account system -- you can't terminate that which doesn't exist. (Worth checking with a real lawyer though: an account might be "deemed" to exist, despite neither party actually formulating any sort of contract, or even knowing each others identity.) There's nothing in the Act that requires services to be terminated where an account is closed. Ordinary commercial common sense might suggest it, but it's not a requirement. (The Act doesn't define what an "account" is, but given that the Act is overseen by the Commerce Dept, one would infer it means a financial account. However if you wound up in court they *might* take a different interpretation.) -Martin

On 13/03/2009, at 8:46 AM, Brislen, Paul, VF-NZ wrote:

A side question - has anyone seen any work on just how long a person must be disconnected for, should they be found "guilty"? Is it permanent or would switching them off and straight back on be enough?

This was one of my first responses[1] to reading the legislation in question. "Dear baggytrousers47, your internet connection was used to infringe copyright. And this isn't the first time. We are therefore terminating your account, effective immediately. It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get NOTHING! You LOSE! Good DAY sir! ... BTW reply to this e-mail to take advantage of our new account signup offer! Free to previous customers! Welcome to the internet, baggytrousers48!" [1] The aforementioned responses are personal, my own opinion, do not reflect those of my current or previous employers or anyone else ever, you no sue, you no take candle, you can't handle the truth, baby you were born to run, only you-u-u can make this world seem ri-i-ight. JSR -- John S Russell Big Geek. Doing Geek Stuff.