Hey guys,
wondering if anyone from TVNZ On Demand is on this list and wouldn't
mind contacting me offlist regarding problems streaming if a user has an
IPv6 address. The helpdesk doesn't appear to know what ipv6 is so
thought I'd try an alternative.
Many thanks
Barry
Hi everyone,
I have a business need to support IPSEC tunnels with many different vendors
as we don't get to select our partner's equipment vendors.
We've had some recent problems with our existing equipment. At the moment
we're look at whether whether software upgrades will help our current
situation. While we're doing that we're also looking at what other options
exist.
I'd appreciate anyone's operational experiences between different IPSec
vendors, either on-list or to me directly if you want to protect the
identities of the not so innocent :-)
Beer for those who can offer their experiences!
Thanks,
--
*
*Mark Goldfinch | Systems Team Leader
MODICA GROUP
nz: +64 4 498 6000
Hi NZNOG Community,
APNIC 36 Webcast is going to start in 15 minutes.
There will be two parallel live webcasts. You can access then from here
http://conference.apnic.net/36/program#broadcast
Hope you can all join the webcast to take part in APNIC 36 sessions from
Xian, China.
See you online!
Kind regards,
Elly
APNIC
I am looking for a large (42RU or taller) and deep (900mm) 19" rack lying around in Auckland (or for sale, in stock, in Auckland)
We can't wait for standard lead times sorry so looking for someone with an empty one wanting to get it hauled away for free and re used or someone who sells / supplies them based in Auckland holding stock on premises.
Looking for off list replies / suggestions / options
Thank you all
Regards
Alexander
Alexander Neilson
Neilson Productions Limited
alexander(a)neilson.net.nz
021 329 681
022 456 2326
Hey guys
Anyone seeing any issues with GGI / Chorus, particularly Sky Tower.
We lost Chorus Auckland UFB for 8 minutes, physical interface down.
We lost a 1Gb GGI International circuit to one of our clients in Sky
Tower but no traffic passing.
Also had reports of some other fibre circuits having issues that
terminate to Sky & MDR though these have not been confirmed.
Many thanks
Barry Murphy
Call for papers - NZNOG 2014
Doing something interesting in the Internetworking space? Submit an
NZNOG conference paper and you could win a trip to the next APRICOT
meeting in Bangkok Thailand!
----
The NZNOG organising committee invites papers for its 13th annual
conference, to be hosted at the Rutherford Hotel, Nelson, New Zealand
from 27 – 31 January 2014. There will the three day Workshops 27 – 29
January, a day of tutorials on 29 January with the main conference on 30
– 31 January.
The best local conference paper as judged by the trustees in association
with the programme committee will win a trip to APRICOT 2014, to be held
in Bangkok, Thailand, 18-28 February 2014. So, get writing!
Conference objective:
The NZNOG conference, workshops and tutorials are a once-a-year
opportunity for individuals and organisations involved in Internet
operations to meet and share the latest in Internet operations,
technologies practises and receive high quality training.
The event is unique in New Zealand and attracts technical, skilled
individuals with a genuine interest in Internet operations and
Internetworking technologies.
Submit a paper:
Presenters are invited to submit abstracts of their paper for
consideration by Monday 21st October. Abstracts should be no more than
one page long and provide a summary of your networking-related subject
matter. Please note that full slide decks will be required by 18th
November.
To submit your paper please e-mail: talks(a)nznog.org
When considering a presentation, remember that the NZNOG audience is
mainly comprised of technical network operators and engineers with a
wide range of experience levels from beginners to multi-year experience.
There is a strong orientation to offer core skills and basic knowledge
in SIGs and to address issues relevant to the day-to-day operations of
ISPs and network operators in the conference sessions.
Note: The inclusion of a title, bio, topic, abstract, and slides with
proposals is not compulsory but will help us determine the quality of
your proposal and increase the likelihood it will be accepted.
The organising committee will evaluate abstracts based on fit with the
conference’s objective and its ability to stimulate lively discussions
around the current state of New Zealand networking.
The best local paper will be judged by a selection of the trustees and
the programme committee. Return flights from New Zealand, accommodation,
and conference fees will be covered. It will be expected the best paper
is submitted by the winner for presentation at APRICOT.
More details on paper submission can be found at
http://www.nznog.org/call-for-papers
For more information about the conference visit www.nznog.org or
contact: talks(a)nznog.org
Afternoon everyone,
The NZNOG 2014 Programme Committee is responsible for the
solicitation and selection of suitable presentation and tutorial
content for the NZNOG 2014 conference (www.nznog.org).
The NZNOG Trustees selects a new Programme Committee each year and is now
seeking nominations from the community.
Eligible PC candidates are those who have attended NZNOG
conferences in the recent past, have broad technical knowledge of
Internet operations, and have reasonable familiarity with the format
of NZNOG conferences. Having constructive opinions and
ideas about how the programme content might be improved is of high
value too. PC members are expected to work actively to solicit
content for the event and review submissions for technical merit.
The PC will meet by regular conference calls, during the
months prior to the event.
If you are interested in joining the PC send a brief note to
"trustees at nznog.org". The
note should include affiliation (if any) and contact details
(including e-mail address), and a brief description of why you would
make a good addition to the PC. PC members receive complimentary
registration for the event.
The NZNOG Trustees will accept nominations received by the end of Friday
30th August, 2013, and will announce the new PC shortly thereafter.
Many thanks!
NZNOG Trustees
Hi all,
There are currently 3 policies for consideration at the APNIC 36
meeting Xi'an at the end of August.
They are:
prop-108 Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process
prop-107 AS number transfer policy proposal
prop-105 Distribution of returned IPv4 address (Modification of prop-088)
I'll go through briefly what the proposals and where appropriate what
I think about them.
I'm going to be one of the NZers at the meeting, if there is a point
of view that you'd like me to keep in mind during the discussion there
then just drop me a line.
Regards,
Dean
prop-108 Suggested changes to the APNIC Policy Development Process
-----
Proposed by Dean Pemberton[1] and Izumi Okutani (JPNIC)
This proposal seeks to clarify a set of 3 issues with the current PDP
which were highlighted during the last meeting in Singapore.
The issues are:
**Timing Requirements for the Policy-SIG chairs to announce consensus**
in the Open Policy Meeting (OPM)**
At the moment the Chair calls for consensus on proposals during the
OPM and then moves to immediately gauge if consensus has been reached.
Due to the nebulous nature of gauging consensus, the Chairs have
expressed a desire to be allowed an opportunity to discuss among
themselves if consensus has been reached.
This proposal seeks to give them this ability as long as a
determination on consensus is delivered before the end of the OPM.
**Requiring for consensus to be called and demonstrated at the AMM**
A historical artefact from the days when there were multiple SIGs
within APNIC all producing policy requires that proposals not only
gain consensus at their individual OPMs, but also again when the whole
membership comes together a day later at the APNIC Members Meeting.
This was done to ensure that if there were conflicting policies
produced by two SIGs at the same meeting, this would become obvious
during the second call for consensus at the AMM and resolved.
Now that the Policy-SIG is the only policy-generating body within
APNIC, this is no longer necessary and creates confusion as to why a
second consensus call is required.
This proposal seeks to remove the requirement for a second call for
consensus at the AMM unless the SIG Chair deems that it is necessary
for any reason.
**The length of the required comment period for successful policy
proposals after the AMM**
Once a policy proposal has gained consensus at the OPM/AMM, it is
returned to the mailing list for a comment period lasting 8 weeks.
This was historically to allow members not at the OPM/AMM to
contribute on the mailing list.
In practice there is little to no comment during this time, with all
comment on a proposal happening before the OPM. This has the effect
of delaying any policy implementations for 8 weeks.
This proposal seeks to shorten this comment period to a minimum of 2
weeks unless the SIG Chair deems that it should be longer.
Pros:
Streamlines the process and removes some of the things which make the PDP a pain
Cons:
Some members may feel that it gives the Policy-SIG power to implement
policy without AMM oversight. In practice this isn't the case as the
APNIC exec council has the final decision on policy introduction.
prop-107 AS number transfer policy proposal
-----
Proposed by Tomohiro Fujisaki
There have been a lot of policies dealing with the transfer of IPv4
addresses as RIRs reached exhaustion.
What has not been dealt with however are any policies around
transferring AS numbers either between APNIC members, or between APNIC
members and members of other RIRs.
While this is not a huge problem in terms of demand (actual numbers
are hard to get, but I’ve been told there are a non-zero number of
applicants), it would be good to close this gap in current policy.
Generally I'm supportive.
Pros:
Makes a level playing field between AS numbers and other IP resources
in relation to transfer policy
Cons:
More policy for an area which doesn’t have a significant demand.
prop-105 Distribution of returned IPv4 address (Modification of prop-088)
-----
Proposed by Tomohiro Fujisaki
This one is a bit more contentious.
At present APNIC is operating under a policy of only giving a single
block of 1024 IPv4 addresses out to any existing or new members.
This is basically because they are all gone.
Once you get this special last block (being called a 'last slash-8
block') you can never get any more IPv4 addresses.
The thing is... IANA has a few more numbers which they can give out.
These are dregs which other people have given back to IANA and they
are preparing to hand them out to the RIRs.
So the question is, what should APNIC do with those addresses? There
aren’t THAT many of them (probably about 4 million, but don't quote
me), certainly not enough to go back to the old way of allocating them
(they would last less than a few months).
Should they just be placed into the current pool and treated the same
as the 'last slash-8' addresses, or, as this proposal suggests, should
APNIC members be allowed a second bite at the cherry?
This policy proposes that members be allowed one allocation from the
'last slash-8' and then an additional allocation from any addresses
returned by IANA.
Opinion is divided here. Some feel that it gives people one last hope
for IPv4 when they should be concentrating on deploying IPv6, while
others say that they need just a few more addresses to tide them over.
Still others say that it should only be available to developing
nations or organisations with small allocations already.
I'm on the fence here, but I think that the framework we would need to
put in place to administer this would outweigh the benefit gained from
offering another allocation to members. I'm currently in favour of
just putting them in the existing pool and carrying on as we do today.
I’ll be meeting with the author in Xi’an to see if there is any
convincing argument the other way.
If anyone has any feedback on this one let me know.
Pros: Gets addresses out to people who need them
Cons: Gives an inaccurate impression that there are any more IPv4
addresses left. People should be moving their large IP address
demands to IPv6
[1] While I have strived for balance in this assessment, readers
should be aware that I am a co-author of the proposal.
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean(a)internetnz.net.nz
To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.
