David Robb wrote:
I just got this from APNIC. Anyone else get one?
My initial reaction is "say WHAT!?"
Are Telecom trying to assert authority over IP space which I'd like to see a whole lot of justification as to why it's "theirs".
One simple answer is that it long has been, and before that was held by The University of Waikato. That Telecom hold a lot of New Zealand's address space isn't a new issue. (See, for instance, the archive for this list for June 1998.) - Donald Neal Donald Neal |Presbyopia - inability to see what Technical Specialist | bishops are for. Operations Engineering | Integration & Services Division +----------------------------------- Alcatel NZ Ltd - Telecom's network operations manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 25 Nov 2004, at 18:19, Donald Neal wrote:
One simple answer is that it long has been, and before that was held by The University of Waikato. That Telecom hold a lot of New Zealand's address space isn't a new issue. (See, for instance, the archive for this list for June 1998.)
This came up back when I was working at CLEAR. At the time the problem that I had was that people from Telecom were contacting CLEAR customers and saying "you are using our addresses, and therefore need to renumber. Alternatively you can become Telecom customers, and avoid renumbering." We had a meeting at the cisco offices in Auckland (facilitated by Roger de Salis, if I remember correctly) where we agreed that Telecom should stop asserting "ownership" of those numbers, and stop contacting customers like that. Telecom attended the meeting. There was much nodding and agreement amongst all parties. [We also reached loose agreement at that meeting to carve up the historical NZGATE assignments into /19s, and give nominal authority over each /19 to the ISP who happened to have the most customers in it at the time. Andy should remember this; it was his idea, as I recall.] The disputed "NZGATE" blocks were inherited by Telecom by virtue of the fact that they "took over the NZGATE function". If I travel back in time and speak briefly with a CLEAR hat on, I might suggest that "took over the NZGATE function" might better be phrased as "became one of two companies providing international Internet transit to NZ at the NZIX". It's a matter of perspective, and it's not at all clear from my recollections that the Telecom view is the most reasonable one. When the addresses were assigned by NZGATE there was no suggestion that they were anything other than provider-independent, to be available for use by the people they were assigned to in perpetuity. If I was someone who had been assigned such addresses, I would strongly resist any attempt by APNIC to re-classify them as provider-aggregatable addresses of Telecom NZ. Call a lawyer. By any reasonable interpretation of events, they are NZ "swamp space" -- throwbacks to an older, less formal and unbureaucratic era. If the answer from APNIC is that "this is our policy, and we are membership-driven" then someone should ask APNIC exactly what clause of what policy allows them to impose new restrictions on the use of addresses which were assigned years ago without any. Joe
We have one of those blocks which we got from the University of
Waikato a rather long long time ago. Telecom never had anything to do
with our block.
The current situation means that all of the contacts for those blocks
have just been wiped. So they cannot even contact the real owners any
more unless they kept a record of the old listings. (Fat chance I
would say).
You can't even say "look I have had this for 14 years".
What's even worse is that I was never notified this was happening. And
my contact details were up to date.
What is the point of the APNIC database when you are listed as the
admin, tech contact and maintainer of a block and all of those details
are changed without you being notified. Makes a mockery of the whole
thing.
jfp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Francois Pirus
This is a disaster! Oh well if Telecom want to get all the Abuse contact from anyone wanting to contact address space/ISP abuse contacts for SPAM etc then so be it, but what a terrible way to try and find who's address block is who's now. Whats the next step? Is there a way back to get our contact details back on the whois records? Regards Dan jfp wrote:
We have one of those blocks which we got from the University of Waikato a rather long long time ago. Telecom never had anything to do with our block.
The current situation means that all of the contacts for those blocks have just been wiped. So they cannot even contact the real owners any more unless they kept a record of the old listings. (Fat chance I would say).
You can't even say "look I have had this for 14 years".
What's even worse is that I was never notified this was happening. And my contact details were up to date.
What is the point of the APNIC database when you are listed as the admin, tech contact and maintainer of a block and all of those details are changed without you being notified. Makes a mockery of the whole thing.
jfp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jean-Francois Pirus
Senior Software Engineer Phone (+64-9) 358 2081 Clearfield Software Ltd Fax (+64-9) 358 2083 4th Floor 8-10 Whitaker Place Mob (+64-21) 640 779 P O Box 2348 Auckland, New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Dan Clark wrote:
This is a disaster! Oh well if Telecom want to get all the Abuse contact from anyone wanting to contact address space/ISP abuse contacts for SPAM etc then so be it, but what a terrible way to try and find who's address block is who's now. If that is all it was then most ppl won't worry but the implication of this is more serious than that.
If it becomes part of telecom then eventually there will be some point when Telecom will think they own it and start charging for use of it OR worse still, start allocating the space for their own use. David and jfp aren't the only ones affected by this (if David's email is an indication of what is to come for others in the same boat).
Whats the next step? Is there a way back to get our contact details back on the whois records? That is a good question. Does anyone on that historical block have their whois info?.
Who in APNIC do we contact about this? Who will represent these users to APNIC? What if APNIC won't listen to reason? Anyway I am quite happy to set up a mailing list for ppl who "own" IPs within the old block so we can have a discussion. email me privately if you want to be subbed to it. If there's enough requests I'll set up one. btw when you email me, do let me know which ip block you are using. I'd prever to hear from ppl who will be affected than let everyone be part of the mailing list. regards lin
jfp wrote:
We have one of those blocks which we got from the University of Waikato a rather long long time ago. Telecom never had anything to do with our block.
The current situation means that all of the contacts for those blocks have just been wiped. So they cannot even contact the real owners any more unless they kept a record of the old listings. (Fat chance I would say).
You can't even say "look I have had this for 14 years".
What's even worse is that I was never notified this was happening. And my contact details were up to date.
What is the point of the APNIC database when you are listed as the admin, tech contact and maintainer of a block and all of those details are changed without you being notified. Makes a mockery of the whole thing.
jfp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jean-Francois Pirus
Senior Software Engineer Phone (+64-9) 358 2081 Clearfield Software Ltd Fax (+64-9) 358 2083 4th Floor 8-10 Whitaker Place Mob (+64-21) 640 779 P O Box 2348 Auckland, New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
Lin Nah wrote:
If it becomes part of telecom then eventually there will be some point when Telecom will think they own it and start charging for use of it OR worse still, start allocating the space for their own use
Didn't this happen to maxnet not so long ago? -Richard
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Richard Patterson wrote:
Lin Nah wrote:
If it becomes part of telecom then eventually there will be some point when Telecom will think they own it and start charging for use of it OR worse still, start allocating the space for their own use
Didn't this happen to maxnet not so long ago?
No. That said, we have a legacy /24 from Waikato, 202.27.204.0/24, which has been eaten by Telecom. Although it was always under their maintainer (APNIC wouldn't let us put it under ours), but it seems our person records have disappeared - although presumably this is from the WHOIS privatising. aj -- Network Operations || noc. +64.9.915.1825 Maxnet || cell. +64.21.639.706
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, jfp wrote:
The current situation means that all of the contacts for those blocks have just been wiped.
And interestingly enough, despite the email from APNIC saying : "Therefore as these assignments are from NZTelcom's blocks in one week's time the maintainer protecting these assignments will be changed to the maintainer of NZTelecom." if I look at the whois record right now: ender(a)gsv:~$ whois 202.49.252.0 % [whois.apnic.net node-1] % Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html inetnum: 202.49.0.0 - 202.49.255.255 netname: NZGATE-NZ descr: NZ Gate National Service Provider descr: Administered by Telecom New Zealand Ltd descr: New Zeland It's already been changed. So much for the week's notification APNIC. I'm also curious that this says "NZ Gate National Service Provider". I thought NZGate was loooong gone. --David
Donald Neal wrote:
One simple answer is that it long has been, and before that was held by The University of Waikato. That Telecom hold a lot of New Zealand's address space isn't a new issue. (See, for instance, the archive for this list for June 1998.)
As I posted back then
For those interested RIPE-127 (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-127.html) provides a useful and lucid dissertation on the subject and offers a number of sensible recommendations. To selectively quote "All early Internet address space assignments were provider independent. Many assignments made by ISPs are also formally provider independent because they lack the clear prior understanding between ISP and customer that the assignment will end with the termination of the service."
This is effectively confirmed by RIPE-288 ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-288.txt which obsoletes Ripe-127, now at ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-127.txt. I have had several goes at APNIC over the past few years to get them to recognise the historical allocations made by Waikato as provider independent (PI) space and for them to be managed as such rather than as provider aggregatable (PA) addresses, i.e. Telecom's. The meeting at the Cisco offices that Joe refers was as I recall in response to Joe's splendid dissertation on the subject http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/1998-October/000180.html. Joe's recollection that "We also reached loose agreement at that meeting to carve up the historical NZGATE assignments into /19s, and give nominal authority over each /19 to the ISP who happened to have the most customers in it at the time" still seems to me to be the best outcome although with the smaller assignment window the /19 could be smaller. Sadly I was never able to fully engage Internetnz in this battle as I suspect the topic was rather too esoteric for many of the councillors. APNIC seem primarily interested in the historically allocated space going away and making it Telecom's problem is a neat solution for them. If Don Kendrick is serious about "if someone whats to asume the management and costs associated with these IPs" I'd be happy to facilitate this. I would need the old whois data though :) Unless Don is serious then NZNogers seem to me to have four options: 1. Accept the status quo, leave it to Telecom and pay apnic for space. Handled properly this is a relatively painless (apart from the wads of cash) way of sorting the matter. 2. Pay lawyers to attack telecom, APNIC, et al. This would make the wads of cash for joining apnic seem like petty cash. 3. Write to the Commerce Commission about what could be interpreted as Telecom's anti competitive behaviour. (i.e let's take out the small guys who have no cash to fight us approach). 4. Get an organisation interested in promotion of the competitive provision of Internet access, services and facilities in an open and uncaptureable environment (and with a deep pocket) to take up the cause. Keith? -- Robert Gray bob(a)brockhurst.co.nz
participants (9)
-
Alastair Johnson
-
Dan Clark
-
David Robb
-
Donald Neal
-
jfp
-
Joe Abley
-
Lin Nah
-
Richard Patterson
-
Robert Gray