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@bsd.stupi.se> To: ripe@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.
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??? Piet
The real problem behind this is that taxpayers money is spent build something that we already have in the first place: - X.25 connectivity for PAD and public X.400 interconnectivity - a Ebone structure taht will be able to allow a multitude of different service providrs to interact with Internet IP and soon ISO IP. We don't need taxpeyers to put up risk capital to "develop" X.25 and IP as a service. I argue that if a service provider wnat to try his luck on this market he should do so without risk capital from me. The effect is counter productive, by subzidizing one service provider the others may loose customers, are you all aware of this out there? We have been able to initialize a market, don't spoil it 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 --mats 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???
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???
participants (4)
-
Jon Crowcroft -
matsb＠sics.se -
Piet.Beertema＠mcsun.EU.net -
wallace＠rare.nl