home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
ietf
/
orad
/
orad-minutes-91jul.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-17
|
8KB
|
306 lines
CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by Bernhard Stockman/NORDUnet
ORAD Minutes
Minutes from Operations Area Directorate meeting at the Atlanta IETF.
Agenda:
o Introduction
o Presentations
o The issues for ORAD
o ORAD representatives
o Current and near future activities
Introduction:
Proposed goal for this session:
o To get a feeling for what the IETF Operational Area Directorate is,
and is not, intended to be.
o To get a consensus on a set of prioritized activities to be
initiated
Remarks for this meeting:
o We are all in it together, to make it work we need to cooperate on
a set of basic things.
o With the common experience we should be able to identify what we
can deploy of the existing technology
o We should also be able to identify and prioritize development needs
Presentations
o The IETF ORAD and the OPS Area, initial thoughts and views. (Phill
Gross). The goal for an IETF Operations Area Directorate:
- To improve the quality of:
* The Internet
* The tools
1
* Objectives
* Procedures
* Methodologies
* Interactions between operators and users
* International cooperation
- Advise the developers to create meaningful statistics and
protocols.
- International coordination. The ORAD as a forum for
international interconnections.
o Ongoing coordination activities in the R &D networking field.
(Bernhard Stockman NORDUNET).
Relevant activities within the IEPG. The IEPG (a technical subgroup
within CCIRN) has had two meetings so far. At these meetings, a
list of prioritized items was defined:
- Interncontinental link coordination
- Global routing
- Global DNS connectivity
- Global address registration
- NOC/NIC coordination aiming at common methods and practices and
minimal basic services definitions.
The IEPG is viewed as an Agenda setting group, i.e., IEPG will
normally not undertake these items directly within itself but try
to find relevant bodies for such actions.
Example of ongoing activities:
- IETF OPSTAT WG
- RIPE mapping WG
o Commercial service providers' view on coordination. (Susan
Estrada, CERFnet).
It is important to realize that new network providers are entering
the marketplace often. The Operational Requirements Area of the
IETF and, in particular, the ORAD, have a large role to play to
ensure the integrity of the network as new players enter.
Additionally, the operations folks have a responsibility to provide
input and advice to the protocol developers to insure that future
implementations meet defined operational requirements.
The ORAD should help set the agenda for the Operational
Requirements Area. It should define the most pressing operational
2
problems and seek common solutions and recommendations to solve
those problems. The ORAD should also undertake the education of
new network operators through the publication of guidelines for
sensible operations of IP networks.
o A Nordic angle on the coordination issues, NETF Operations
Coordinations WG - A Nordic ``NFIX/NCIX''? - Mats Brunell NORDUNET
The current (yesterday) situation:
- R&D newtork operators only like NORDUnet, UNINETT, FUNET, SUNET
and SURIS.
- NETF (NORDUNET Technical and Engineering Forum) a possible way
like the IETF for inclusion of all relevant parties.
The new situation: Commercial service providers introduced on the
Nordic scene like DataNET/Finland, SWIPnet/Sweden, TIPSnet/Sweden.
The today provision have a growth of 100% or more/year.
- There exist no long term planning.
- There is limited resources.
The today provision have a growth of 100% or more/year. This
creates a need for coordination methods and procedures.
Two possible approaches, ``Like the situation'' or ``Do something
about it''.
1. Like the situation: The existing situation with a multitude of
uncoordinated network giving huge problems with regards to
routing, name services, etc. This means we have to develop
routing protocols etc. that can still work in the messy
situation.
2. A coordinated approach with planned routing and name services
as well as new tools to aid in the collaborative process. The
obvious answer is that we need to do both.
A generally accessible Nordic interconnection point (NFIX/NCIX)
has been proposed for implementation. The NFIX/NCIX will be
available for both R &D and commercial network service
providers.
Sensitive to try to coordinate commercial service providers.
3
The European scene:
PTT's have a different view on have to provide Internet IP
services than ``we'' do, the are used to the X.25/X.75
situation, and setting up a multitude of links to everywhere.
There is a need for knowledge transfer between different
providers and a requirement for development to achieve
scalability and operational stability.
The Issues for ORAD
To set off the discussion:
o Routing, what needs, what protocols, which topology?
o DNS connectivity to all world wide, how?
o IP address and name registration issues
ORAD Representatives
The structure of ORAD.
The question was expressed if ORAD should be a small group of people or
if it should be formed from a large bunch of people.
There should be an election of ORAD members, for example 3 persons that
together with the two co-chairs for 1 year is to form a working
Executive with the responsibility for:
o Follow up on actions
o Promote membership and active work in between meetings
o Prepare meetings
Current and Near Future Activities
Below Working Groups exist today within IETF Operations Area:
o OPSTAT WG
o Benchmarking WG
o User Connectivity WG
o DDN WG
o Network Joint Management WG
o Topology and Engineering WG
Possible other operations WGs
4
o Routing Coordination
o DNS Coordination
o OSI Operations
o X.400 Operations
o X.500 Operations
5
A mailing list for the ORAD will be created by Susan Estrada named:
o orad@sdsc.edu
o orad-request@sdsc.edu.
Attendees
Vikas Aggarwal vikas@JVNC.net
Jordan Becker becker@nis.ans.net
Eric Carroll eric@utcs.utoronto.ca
Henry Clark henryc@oar.net
James Conklin conklin@bitnic.educom.edu
John Curran jcurran@bbn.com
Tom Easterday tom@cic.net
Robert Elz kre@munnari.oz.au
Susan Estrada Estradas@cerf.net
Peter Ford peter@lanl.gov
Vince Fuller vaf@stanford.edu
Shari Galitzer shari@gateway.mitre.org
Phillip Gross pgross@nis.ans.net
Tony Hain alh@es.net
Martyne Hallgren martyne@theory.tn.cornell.edu
Eugene Hastings hastings@psc.edu
Ittai Hershman ittai@nis.ans.net
Ken Jones konkord!ksj@uunet.uu.net
Christopher Kolb kolb@psi.com
Ruth Lang rlang@nisc.sri.com
Louis Leon osll@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu
Daniel Long long@nic.near.net
April Marine april@nisc.sri.com
Matt Mathis mathis@psc.edu
David O'Leary oleary@sura.net
Philippe Park ppark@bbn.com
Marsha Perrott mlp@andrew.cmu.edu
Robert Reschly reschly@brl.mil
Timothy Salo tjs@msc.edu
Tom Sandoski tom@concert.net
Erik Sherk sherk@nmc.cit.cornell.edu
Bernhard Stockman boss@sunet.se
Roxanne Streeter streeter@nsipo.nasa.gov
Subu Subramanian subu@qsun.att.com
Claudio Topolcic topolcic@nri.reston.va.us
Ross Veach rrv@uiuc.edu
Rudiger Volk rv@informatik.uni-dortmund.de
Chris Waters-Pierandozzi waters@jvnc.net
Wengyik Yeong yeongw@psi.com
Osmund de Souza desouza@osdpc.ho.att.com
6