September 1992 - ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Mis-information
by Peter Lothberg 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

> > >This means that the IP-community of Europe will probably have > > >a zero influence on the network, that are supposed to serve our > > >community. And that the CPMU totally ignores the skills of the > > >Ripe community. > > > > This will only be true if none of the Ripe member networks > > paticipate in the IP pilot. > > We (ie JANET/JIPS) intend to participate in the EMPB IP pilot. The reason > we're doing it is that we believe it's important to have high-quality > networks available for our users, and piloting is a necessary part of the > quality-assurance procedure. > > This attitude is no different to our attitude to Ebone '92 -- we've been > happy to participate, and be active in the management and operational > work to get things sorted out. It's been a rewarding experience for us, > our users, and (I'd suggest) other members of the Ebone consortium. > > I find it hard to see much difference between doing this and doing the > same for EMPB -- in both cases we see a reward for work invested. I'd > hope other networks connecting to EMPB participate in the pilot as well. > Otherwise there won't be much to pilot :-) > > > >We have to pay twice, as the skills of the coumunity are not > > >used, and we have to pay the consultants on our taxes/ charges. > > > > You might have to pay for the consultants by your taxes if your > > organisation is part of COSINE, but NOT in charges for the EMPB. > > It seems to me that it's a bit dangerous to start suggesting that one > IP network is a burden on the taxpayer, whilst another isn't. As Bruce > points out, EMPB charges aren't. Even a cursory inspection suggests that > substantial bits of the Ebone '92 infrastructure are publically funded, > at least originally. Nothing particularly wrong with that -- they've > been put to good use -- but it seems fairly silly to start this > particular line of discussion at this particular time. > > Bob Day Bob, you are missing the crusial point of the Ebone, it is a OPEN forum for cooperation among networks. And the long term perspective is that it in some form will provide the interconnection between all independent network providors that wants to sell THEIR users a global IP service. EMPB is one of the network providors, among others offering the same kind of services. To use IP you have to provide unrestricted connectivity to all users that share the same address-space, that's the way IP and its user services are designed. To do this a forum for cooperation is needed. EMPB is in direct competetion with several of the Ebone sponsors. -Peter

1 0

MICE - not quite there yet...
by Jon Crowcroft 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

-------- the message i sent about multimedia for europe was a bit premature - sorry, enthusiasm got the better of me. the project is not yet funded... you will certainly know as soon as we find out! note, also, that the protocol stack is subject to much study (as one would expect for continous media, there are no firm standaards yet, so some investigation is needed before committing to any particular technmology...an isochronous service is offered byu some x.25 switch manufactuerers, for instance (e.g. netcomm)). sorry to over-raise hopes... j. --------------- To: matsb(a)sics.se Cc: Piet.Beertema(a)mcsun.eu.net, wallace(a)rare.nl (Bruce Wallace), cpmu(a)rare.nl, davies(a)rare.nl, kalin(a)rare.nl, roll(a)sbd.stupi.se, ripe(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: Mis-information In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Sep 92 12:48:24 BST." <9209291148.AA03177(a)asia.sics.se> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 13:37:43 +0100 From: Jon Crowcroft <J.Crowcroft(a)cs.ucl.ac.uk> >Waht we do need is risk capital from tax payers to show new >applications so taht the service providers will invest in higher >bandwidth network solutions for mulitmedia mail and video >conferencing. >Step 1 34 Mbps addtional bandwidth support to Ebone, maybe PTT telcomm >is interested to prowide this for the same amount of money? >Step 2 Separate testbed to try new concepts and protocol structures yes - we will need just these two steps to finalise work on the MICE project in late 1993. However, to start this project (from the day after tomorrow:-), we need: For those of you not aware, the EC has funded MICE (Multimedia International Conferencing for the Ec) to coordinate pilot services for audio, video, audio and shared whiteboard/editors between any interested EC and EFTA countries....at least France, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden + Norway are involved already. We will be using existing tools (e.g. vat, dvc, inria, videoconf,) for workstation conferencing and H.261 CODECs with packetizers and any other technology to link video conferencing roms facilities at Research and Educational Facilities. (A Packetiser is usually a sparcstation with hsi board). typically, this will entail IP (since much of the video/audio technology comes from the US< just like good networking technology), to carry packet video and audio - we hope to work with RIPE/RARE and with router and switch vendors to influence the production pof resource guarantees in ther network devices. End systems are already fine for audio, and shared applications in the Ebone environment. Video has not been extensively tried. If you are worred about being swamped with traffic, let me assure you that each user nation *must* have full approval end to end... obviously, the multicast facilities of the Mbone will be essential in optimising traffic (will EMPB provide multicast?). jon and just to agree on the sign-off: > Who would want to participate in an IP *pilot*, when > we have a globe-wide, reliable, and well-managed IP > *service* right behind our keyboards??? ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

The Complete EBONE Up and Running !!!
by boss＠ebone.net 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

To the European IP community, This is to inform you that today, Sunday 26 September 1992, the final link of the initially defined EBONE, the London-Montpellier link, was put in place. The EBONE is now complete as a resilient pan-European IP backbone. September 1, 1991, after an initiative by Kees Neggers, a small group of people gathered for the first time, in an office building outside Amsterdam, to see if it could be possible to build a pan-European IP backbone. Today, 390 days later, the full backbone is up and running. Without all the voluntary efforts put in this would never have been possible. As a result we today see one of the worlds technically most advanced backbones in Europe. I must admit I have never seen a group with so much expertise gathered around the table and with so much enthusiasm in making this knowledge serve the European networking user community. I will by this give my deep gratitude to all those people involved in the fulfillment of the first pan-European IP backbone. To make it short: WE MADE IT!!! ======================== There is some bottles of champaign waiting in Paris :-) See you there all of you, Bernhard Stockman. Chair of the EBONE Action Team.

6 5

Re: Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
by Arnold Nipper 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

>PS: Countries whose nets are announced on the NSFNET Backbone are listed in >/statistics/nets.by.country, available by anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net. -s /statistics/nsfnet/nets.by.country Arnold Nipper XLINK

1 0

Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
by Stephen Wolff 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

On behalf of the R&E community, NSF sought and in June, 1991 received a letter from the Department of Commerce authorizing IP connectivity to the so-called Eastern bloc. In a second letter from Commerce in January, 1992, the authorization was reaffirmed and clarified; i.e., that the concern was export control, **not** the connectivity itself. Accordingly, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, have been now for some time announced on the NSFNET Backbone; somewhat more recently, Estonia is reachable as are (potentially) the other Baltic states. Although connectivity to the xSU is covered by the Commerce letters to NSF, at the request of the Federal Networking Council (FNC) the NSF agreed not to carry such traffic on the NSFNET Backbone. This concession was nugatory until two recent events: a network in the xSU is now being announced by the CIX, so that it can (and does) exchange traffic with non-Federal US nets, and Federal mission agencies are establishing what amount to point-to-point links from specific sites in the xSU to specific US computational resources. At the FNC meeting on Thursday, the 24th September, the NSF therefore asked the FNC to reconsider its position, since a side effect of the growing connectivity (which is either "non-R&E" or is between unilaterally-selected scientists and sites in the US and the xSU) is to disenfranchise a large fraction of the US R&E community whose aspirations for unrestricted scientific and educational collaboration with their peers and colleagues in the xSU NSF fully endorses. -s PS: Countries whose nets are announced on the NSFNET Backbone are listed in /statistics/nets.by.country, available by anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net. -s

1 0

Re: Mis-information
by bob＠informatics.rutherford.ac.uk 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

> >This means that the IP-community of Europe will probably have > >a zero influence on the network, that are supposed to serve our > >community. And that the CPMU totally ignores the skills of the > >Ripe community. > > This will only be true if none of the Ripe member networks > paticipate in the IP pilot. We (ie JANET/JIPS) intend to participate in the EMPB IP pilot. The reason we're doing it is that we believe it's important to have high-quality networks available for our users, and piloting is a necessary part of the quality-assurance procedure. This attitude is no different to our attitude to Ebone '92 -- we've been happy to participate, and be active in the management and operational work to get things sorted out. It's been a rewarding experience for us, our users, and (I'd suggest) other members of the Ebone consortium. I find it hard to see much difference between doing this and doing the same for EMPB -- in both cases we see a reward for work invested. I'd hope other networks connecting to EMPB participate in the pilot as well. Otherwise there won't be much to pilot :-) > >We have to pay twice, as the skills of the coumunity are not > >used, and we have to pay the consultants on our taxes/ charges. > > You might have to pay for the consultants by your taxes if your > organisation is part of COSINE, but NOT in charges for the EMPB. It seems to me that it's a bit dangerous to start suggesting that one IP network is a burden on the taxpayer, whilst another isn't. As Bruce points out, EMPB charges aren't. Even a cursory inspection suggests that substantial bits of the Ebone '92 infrastructure are publically funded, at least originally. Nothing particularly wrong with that -- they've been put to good use -- but it seems fairly silly to start this particular line of discussion at this particular time. Bob Day

1 0

Re: Mis-information
by Peter Lothberg 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

> This means that the IP-community of Europe will probably have > a zero influence on the network, that are supposed to serve our > community. And that the CPMU totally ignores the skills of the > Ripe community. > This will only be true if none of the Ripe member networks > paticipate in the IP pilot. > Who would want to participate in an IP *pilot*, when > we have a globe-wide, reliable, and well-managed IP > *service* right behind our keyboards??? It's even worse, the EMPB has to have it's ovn relationship to EVERY ip network in the wolrd, as they do not cooperate with -GIX- type of concortias like the Ebone. -Peter

1 0

Mis-information
by wallace＠rare.nl 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

Dear all , A correction to the "rumours" that are propogated below, from the person involved in the matter. _____________________________________________________________ >Date: Sun, 27th Sep 92 21:14:30 MET >From: Peter Lothberg <roll(a)bsd.stupi.se> >To: ripe(a)rip.net >Subject: What are the COSINE/CPMU in the Rare officie doing? >Some days ago we all received a long document that looked like >this; >Note the document has bee recieved September 8, 1992. >______________________________________________________________ > RARE and RIPE / RIPE - NCC > RIPE: > RIPE should stay a technical IP coordinating body within >RARE, but having much more interaction with the RARE management, >technical and executive bodies (CoA, RTC, REC, Raesec) than in >the past > according to it's charter, RIPE should be serving wider >population than RARE membership > one should obsercve gradual merger (or at least very close >cooperation between identical or related Working Groups of RARE >and RIPE, leading to a coordibated management of technical >activities > Ripe should support establishment and utilisation of the >EMPB, particularly in the pilot phase, where its expertise is >crucially needed >I have learned through releiable sources that the EMPB?PTT- >Telecom is planning to subcontract "IP network Consulting" for >EMPB to Softlabs. This is totally incorrect! PTT-Telecom have not contracted anyone for "IP network Consulting". Softlab are currently contracted to the CPMU for the COSINE project P4- "Network Management in the Context of concantenated Networks". They have been asked to provide consultancy in the above topic for the EMPB.(By the CPMU). >Another strange thing seems to be that the receiver(What's >that?)was " Bruce Wallace at PTT Telecom" I thought he was with >the CPMU? You are quite correct about this point I (Bruce Wallace) am a member of the CPMU and not a PTT-Telecom employee. (I suggest you stop using this "reliable source" as he(or she) is plainly not reliable! >This means that the IP-community of Europe will probably have >a zero influence on the network, that are supposed to serve our >community. And that the CPMU totally ignores the skills of the >Ripe community. This will only be true if none of the Ripe member networks paticipate in the IP pilot. >We have to pay twice, as the skills of the coumunity are not >used, and we have to pay the consultants on our taxes/ charges. You might have to pay for the consultants by your taxes if your organisation is part of COSINE, but NOT in charges for the EMPB. >I might be wrong, if someone has better knowledge about this, >please speak up. >Peter. I have spoken up and I hope cleared up the mistakes. Regards Bruce.

4 3

Re: Mis-information
by Peter Lothberg 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

>I have spoken up and I hope cleared up the mistakes. >Regards >Bruce. Thanks Bruce, My problem, and I guess that that goes for many in the IP networking world of the planet Earth are not used to the 'big-brother' approach. The quality of the service, seen by the enduser (and the networks are to support the endusers) are the sum of all involved organisations, that his traffic may traverese. A well managed, but SECRET cloud in the middle, that tryes to establish itsef without talking to ALL of the outside world, creates problems, real of imagined. As you seem to be informed, I would like to ask you to submitt to the Ripe malinglist all relevant documents, and the in deepth technical plan for the EMPB IP service, and how that interropetartes with other planned Unisource IP networking activities. -Peter

1 0

RIPE meeting - Agenda (latest version)
by k13＠nikhef.nl 29 Sep '92

29 Sep '92

ripe-a-13 R I P E Agenda of the 13th RIPE meeting =============================== September 30 - October 2, 1992 - - - - - - - - - - - W E D N E S D A Y 14:00 h - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. Opening (R Blokzijl) 15 min o welcome o apologies o introduction o meeting secretary o dinner for Thursday evening o approval of the agenda o papers tabled o organisation of the meeting 3. Minutes of the last meeting 15 min o approval of the minutes o action list 2. RIPE position paper (R Blokzijl) 15 min o formal approval of the last draft 3. RIPE NCC (D Karrenberg) 60 min o report o the future of the RIPE NCC: - organisational position - budget - financing 4. RIPE and RARE 60 min o report from the RARE CoA, September 24-25. (R Blokzijl) o the RARE technical program (RTC members) An introduction of the RARE technical program, with an emphasis on IP networking. 5. Global Internet traffic measurement (T Nielsen) 30 min o Torben will present a proposal to do a global Internet traffic measurement. The proposal is that (some of) the RIPE networks participate in an effort to measure global IP traffic streams. 6. Global Address Assignement (D Karrenberg) 15 min 7. Delegated Registry inside Europe (D Karrenberg) 15 min o coordination between local NIC/NIS and the RIPE NCC 8. Networking in Russia (M Popov) 15 min o status, including international connectivity o future plans - - - - - - - - - - - - - T H U R S D A Y 09:00 h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9. EBONE (P Jones, B Stockman) 60 min o status report o plans for EBONE 93 10. EMPB IP services (PTT Telecom NL) 30 min o EMPB is going to introduce IP on it's network, EMPB will be connected to some of the RIPE coordinated networks. Issues related to interworking between EMPB/IP and the European Internet will be presented and discussed. 11. Audio conferencing (D Karrenberg) 15 min o introduction o proposal for an MBONE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The following sessions are meetings of - the RIPE working groups - special interest groups They take place with a degree of parallelism. A. Relationship between Academic & Research networks and Commercial networks [Glenn Kowack] B. Network information services [Nandor Horvath] C. DNS issues [Francis Dupont] D. European connectivity [Milan Sterba] E. RIPE Database [Wilfried Woeber] F. IP routing in Europe [Jean-Michel Jouanigot] G. Audio Conferencing [Daniel Karrenberg] H. Global Internet traffic measurement [Torben Nielsen] I. Delegated registry coordination [Daniel Karrenberg] J. EBS managers meeting (closed) [Phil Jones] K. EBONE Germany meeting [Stefan Fassbender] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F R I D A Y 09:00 h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12. Reports from the working groups. 120 min 13. Coordination of the RIPE and RARE technical programs. 30 min o for decission 14. Global Internet traffic measurement (T Nielsen) 30 min o proposal o decission 15. Date, place and time of next meetings 15 min o January 25 - 27, Prague 16. A.O.B. 15 min 17 Closing RIPE working group: European IP connectivity Chairman: Milan Sterba -------------------------------------------- Here is the first draft for our agenda at the next RIPE meeting in Paris. I consider a meeting of this WG during the Paris meeting as usefull and suppose that we will need two 1.5 hour blocks to cover the topics. Thanks for comments and suggestions. * CEEC report revisited (discussion -> new report before end oct.) * Ebone/non-Ebone coutries/networks relationship (clarification) (this related to a more general problem of AUP's in different european networks) * CEEC connectivity scheme optimization (with respect to existing and realistically planned connections, eg. IXI extensions, recent Ebone evolutions etc.) discussion -> recommendation * commercial use of international links in poorely connected countries (current state and possibilities) <-> (Glenn's WG) * non-connected coutries - state of the art and what can we do * overview of actions to support networking in CEEC countries (joint research, network schools, conferences, direct help, etc.) summary -> NIDUS WG * regional mapping process coordination for CEEC (regional mapping authority appointment) * towards a global network architecture in Europe in the environment of multiple IP providers (regional NAP's, routing servers and arbiters) (BOF - is this scheme suitable for Europe ?) Of course there is one major theme in European connectivity, which is the EMPB IP Pilot/Ebone and OU/Ebone relationships. But I suppose this topic will be covered in plenary. RIPE working group: IP routing in Europe Chairman: Jean-Michel Jouanigot ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- Policy Based Routing Within RIPE 1.1- Presentation and status of nlc 1.2- Progress of the Policy based routing Pilot 1.3- Policy based routing tags collection (draft) 2- EBONE routing 2.1- Status of the EBONE routing 2.2- Backup to the US 2.3- Ebone routing and RIPE database (draft) 3- Routing Policy Description Form (Jessica Yu) RIPE working group: whois database Chairman: Wilfried Woeber ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB-WG 1. RIPE-DB Operational Issues 1.1 - change of DB format by NIC (nicnets.db) issue raised by Ruediger Volk, Marten Terpstra 1.2 - addition of, or "nonstandard use" of fields issue raised by Jean-Michel Jouanigot, Marten Terpstra DB-WG 2. RIPE-DB Technical Issues 2.1 - definition of and agreeement on Autonomous System Object issue raised by Daniel Karrenberg >>input solicited from Ruediger Volk, Daniel Karrenberg 2.2 - proposal to add field *tech-l/*tl to objects where useful proposal by Andreas Schachtner 2.3 - modification of *in field to take care of supernetting proposal by Andreas Schachtner 2.4 - review of importance of Domain Object, superceded by RFC1183 issue raised by Daniel Karrenberg 2.5 - discussion on feasibility of general purpose extensions to DB >>input (example for GARR usage) solicited from A. Blasco Bonito DB-WG 3. RIPE-DB Organizational and Legal Issues 3.1 - ownership and "acceptable use" of RIPE-DB 3.2 - review/update of ripe-w02 describing the database objects 3.3 - coordination and future liaison with X.400/X.500/MHS activities

1 0