NZGATE/Waikato has a little piece of paper which said
I meant that NZGATE addresses (those identified in Joe's document as
NZGATE addresses) belong to those to whom they were issued.
Illegal - which law or laws would be in violation
There are likely several. It's one of the reasons i earlier suggested
a legal opinion would be appropriate. It makes little sense to suggest
a policy that would likely be overtuned by the courts. However, there
are many forms a policy could take that would make this unnecessary.
Which 'improvements in routing software' are
we talking about here?
Most specifically dampening.
but more routes is going to lead to more human errors
and more complicated access-lists, etc.
It's already outside human built lists (which are always error prone)
in many if not almost all circumstances. We'll see better tools and
life will get easier in spite of a growing number of routes and peering
Was 202/8 initially not divided up into much large
chunks (eg. /20)?
No. 202/8 was in use before provider based addressing was introduced.
Several (of the earliest) NZ ISPs have /24's in 202/8 direct from APNIC
that are outside the NZGATE addresses. APNIC issued /24's all over the
asia-pacific region out of 202/8 without country specific aggregation.
Only later did they move to provider based addressing within 202/8.
Nobody should be forced to renumber (unless there
network is very
small, say /28), but there should be mechanisms which encourage this
Anything longer than /24 is not very routable (Sprint for one doesn't
accept routes longer than /24), so /24 is the usable limit. I have no
problem with a statement saying blocks smaller than /24 are not
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads: