home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- 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
-