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