Anybody else observed that bigben gained about 19 years at about 1:25pm
Tue Jan 1 14:54:33 NZDT 2002
$ /usr/sbin/ntpdate -q truechimer.waikato.ac.nz
server 188.8.131.52, stratum 2, offset -0.001089, delay 0.04276
1 Jan 14:49:38 ntpdate: adjust time server 184.108.40.206 offset
$ /usr/sbin/ntpdate -q bigben.clix.net.nz
server 220.127.116.11, stratum 1, offset 619315199.998172, delay 0.03613
1 Jan 14:49:55 ntpdate: step time server 18.104.22.168 offset
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
I wont be greedy, ill just take 10 or so, if you can spare them :-)
On Thu, 29 May 2003 11:39:11 +1200, "Brett Healy" <fork(a)btw.co.nz> wrote :
> ill have it.. ill give it a good home. promise :D
> Brett Healy,
> BTW Navigation Systems Ltd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kerry Thompson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2003 11:18
> To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: [nznog] The End Is Nigh... Asia's running out of IP
> David Robb said:
> > And just how much of that space is actually in use?
> And sometimes I wonder how much of the APNIC/NZ space is actually used as
> Years ago I registered a /22 off Netgate for a company, who never used it
> and it stayed registered to my APNIC handle. I'm still wondering what to
> do with it. And there's plenty of other such blocks out there that are
> forgotten and unused.
> Kerry Thompson, CCNA CISSP
> Information Systems Security Consultant
> Nznog mailing list
> Nznog mailing list
Many here will be pleased/interested to hear that in a unanimous 14-0
vote the InternetNZ Council voted in favour of creating geek.nz as the
12th 2LD for .nz.
The interim decision is subject to further submissions, along with
discussion of implementation details. A final decision will be taken
at the next Council meeting in early July.
Hi, NZNOG folk.
We're pleased to announce the release of version 1.7 of the Bogon
Route-Server Project. The major change in release 1.7 is the
addition of three more bogon route-servers to the bogon route-server
project, for a total of four. These are all managed by Team Cymru,
and provide additional redundancy for the project.
All of the bogon route-servers announce the same bogon prefixes and
use the same ASN and community. Folks are free to peer with as many
as they like, though we recommend a minimum of two. Peering with
the bogon route-servers is *FREE*, though you are welcome to buy a
cup of coffee for Rob at the SLC NANOG if you feel kindly. :)
You can read more about the project here:
You can read more about bogon filtering and tracking here:
Rob, for Team Cymru.
ASSERT(coffee != empty);
In message <Pine.LNX.4.30.0305291823140.17378-100000(a)boggle.ihug.co.nz>, Simon L
>On Thu, 29 May 2003, Joe Abley wrote:
>> So, only 14% of the available IPv4 address space had been assigned to
>> RIRs at the time of that presentation.
>Which is fairly meaningless since half those 202 are instead delegated
>to Large Organisations, Various Registries etc.
For sure. But if push comes to shove IANA can talk quietly (perhaps in
the "talk quietly and carry a big stick" sense) to some of those Large
Organisations and see if they couldn't perhaps manage with somewhat less
than 2**24 addresses.
>As the cost of putting a full IP stack and connection drops to only a
>couple of dollars or less all sorts of random things will start having
>them. And before you say NAT remember that the power company will want to
>directly access your meter and hotwater cylinder, your car company the
>car, your whiteware company the fridge etc. Did I mention the games
For many of those it could easily enough be done with NAT. It seems to
me that "phoning home" isn't, inheriently, any more problematic than being
able to interogate the devices remotely for the vendor. And it's probably
somewhat preferable for the customer too. (Even if everything was globally
routable, would you want Joe Random Company connecting in to arbitrary
devices your network? This isn't your grandmother's Internet any longer.
Sure you can use a firewall. You've just moved the problem to being
one of ensuring a million or so firewalls are properly maintained. If I
were a vendor, I'd take "phoning home".)
>When stuff like that comes along we really want them to be deployed on a
>nice ipv6 internet rather than have to suddenly switch cause demand
>increases by a factor of 10 overnight.
It would be nice to have $1,000,000 tomorrow too. I don't think either
of them will happen.
Even at the current ease of use the cost/benefit ratio for converting to
IPv6 is too low for (m)any(one) to put effort into doing so. It'll only
be when there's a whole lot more benefit (eg, lots of IPv6-only
services, or stuff which cannot be done with IPv4+NAT) or a lot less
effort (works out of the box without even thinking about it, and has for
years) that'll actually happen.
Especially since we've had the better part of 10 years for everyone to
get pretty good at designing IPv4+NAT compatible protocols and networks,
thus greatly mitigating the perceived benefit of switching.
 Although should someone wish to give me $1,000,000 tomorrow, I'd be
willing to look suitably surprised on camera.