Draft minutes for IETF Network Status Reports. - please comment.

Gene Hastings hastings at psc.edu
Wed Aug 10 11:40:36 UTC 1994

GREAT THANKS to Marsha Perrott for chairing  the meeting in my absence and
Rob Reschly for the notes.

There are a couple places where the note-taker was not sure of the details,
please corroborate places with (?).


>  Minutes of the Toronto IETF'30 Netstat Working Group
> ================================================================
> submitted to perrott at prep.net
> submitted by reschly at arl.mil
> ================
> CoREN:
> Scott Bradner
> The status of the CoREN Network Services Request for Proposals (RFP)
> process was briefed.  Scott emphasized one key feature of this RFP:  it
> will result in a contract to provide services to the regionals, not in a
> contract to build a backbone to interconnect regionals.  Since they are
> buying a service, CoREN expects to be one customer among many using
> the same service.
> CoREN does not want to have to rely on the NAPs for everything.  CoREN
> feels NAPs and RAs are a good idea, but....
> Scott observed that dollars flow from the NSF to the Regionals to fully
> connected network service providers (NSPs) to the NAPs.  The only NSPs
> eligible to provide connectivity paid for by NSF funding are those which
> connect to the all primary NAPs (NY, IL, CA).
> The CoREN provider will establish connectivity to all primary NAPs,
> MAE-East, and the CIX.
> Scott was asked about planned NOC responsibilities:  NOC integration
> and coordination is being worked on. Discussion points are relative
> responsibilities, e.g. NEARnet vs CoREN provider hand-off.
> When asked for information on non-CoREN American provider plans, Scott
> knew of at least two providers who will be at other NAPS. Scott
> indicated MCI will be at the Sprint NAP soon.  Others later.
> As for the CoREN RFP evaluation, more than one of proposals was pretty
> close from a technical perspective, and they were close financially.
> The selected provider came out ahead in both measurements and
> additionally offered to support a joint technical committee to provide a
> forum for working issues as they arise. In particular, early efforts
> will focus on quantifying QOS issues as they were intentionally left out
> of the specification so they can be negotiated as needed (initially and
> as the technology changes).
> The circuits are coming in and routers (Cisco 7000s) are being installed
> in the vendor's PoPs this week. First bits will be flowing by 1 August.
> Line and router loading and abuse testing is expected to commence by 15
> August, and production testing is should be underway by 15 September.
> Cutover is expected before 31 October.
> Someone noted there may be some sort of problem related to route cache
> flushing in the current Cisco code which could impact deployment.
> ================
> NC-REN (formerly CONCERT):
> Tim Seaver
> CONCERT is a statewide video and data network operated by MCNC.
>   - primary funding from State of NC
>   - currently 111 direct, 32 dialup, and 52 uucp connections
>   - 30K+ hosts
>   - 4.5Mbps inverse multiplexed 3xDS1 link to ANS pop in Greensboro, NC
> Replaced by NC-REN
>   - expands to North Carolina Research and Education Network
>   - DNS name is changing from concert.net to ncren.net
> Service changes:
>   - dropping commercial services
>   - concentrating on R&E
>   - focus on user help
> Main reason for name change:
>   - British Telecomm and MCI wanted the CONCERT name. MCNC never
>     registered CONCERT.
> In return MCNC management wanted:
>   - NC service community more prominent
>   - alignment with NREN
>   - emphasis on R&E
> Press release 15 April
>   Conversion to ncren.net in progress
>   - Domain registered February 1994
>   - Local changes simple but time-consuming
>   - Remote changes hard and time consuming
>   - Targeting 1 October completion fairly sure of conversion by 31
>     October
>   - Decommission CONCERT by 1 January 1995
> Existing service problems:
>   - Help desk overloaded from dialup UNIX shell accounts
>   - Commercial providers springing up everywhere
>   - The Umstead Act (a NC state law) says state funds cannot subsidize
>     competition with commercial services.
>   - CONCERT had sufficient non-governmental funding to cover commercial
>     services, but accounting practices could not prove separation so
>     they just decided to just stop.
> Service changes
>   - Turned over dialup UNIX shell connectivity to Interpath March 1994
>   - Planning to stop providing commercial IP and UUCP services by
>     October 1994
>   - Planning to stop providing commercial direct services by 1 January
>     1995
>   - Will continue direct connects, IP, UUCP for government, research and
>     education customers.
> Plans:
>   - Pursuing new R&E customers:
>      Remaining private colleges
>      Community colleges
>      K-12 schools
>      State and local government
>      Libraries (?)
>   - Providing security services:
>      firewalls, Kerberos, PEM, secure DNS, secure routing.
>   - Expanding information services:
>      m-bone, NC state government documents, WWW services, and
>      consultation -- to provide more access
>   - Internet connection will be upgraded to 45Mbps October, 1994
>   - Work on a NC Information Highway (NCIH)
> In response to a question about NC microwave trunking he noted that the
> Research Triangle Park area is at 45Mbps and remote areas are at 25Mbps.
> In passing he noted ATM interaction with research community is an
> interesting opportunity, indicating Southern bell GTE and Carolina
> telephone working ATM infrastructure
> In response to a question about the number of sites changing to NC-REN
> he stated there were about 20 R&E direct connections which would move,
> and that the narrowed focus of the NC-REN would not change the cash flow
> model significantly.
> ================
> "Transition from NSFnet Backbone to the NAPland":
> Sue Hares
> Available via WWW at URL: http://rrdb.merit.edu
> If mid-level networks want to send Sue information concerning any
> aspects of plans to transition, please do.  Also indicate what can
> be published (this second permission is hard) -- Sue will respect
> confidentiality requirements.  They desperately need information about
> local and regional plans so they can manage the transition for NSF.
> NOTE: The following is incomplete because Sue went through it very
> quickly.  However, as a teaser if nothing else, some of the information
> on the slides available at the above URL is included below, as well as
> most of the significant discussion....
> NAP online Dates:
>   Sprint NAP  11 August
>   PacBell     mid-September
>   Ameritech   26 September
> Currently scheduled NSFnet service turn-down.  Note this does not say
> anything about tangible infrastructure changes, only NSFnet service
> plans.  That is, NSF says they intend to stop paying for the forwarding
> of traffic via the indicated ENSSs, no more, no less:
> Category 1 CoREN (numbers are ENSSs): (first round)
>   BARRnet     128
>   SURAnet     138 136
>   SESQUInet   139
>   MIDnet      143
>   CICnet      130 129 131
>   NYSERnet    133
>   NEARnet     134
>   NWnet               ??? Sue missed this one on her slide
> In conversation it was reported that PREPnet is not to use PSC
> connection for access after 1 October.
> The real message is that these and following numbers are "official
> notification" for management planning.  It was recommended to "flick the
> lights" before actual turn-off -- i.e. install the replacement
> connectivity and turn off the NSFnet connection to see what breaks.
> Again Sue pleaded for information as it becomes available and permission
> to announce it as soon as possible.
> Category 2 Regional ENSSs
>   Argonne     130
>   PREPnet     132
>   CA*net      133 143 137
>   ALTERnet    134 136
>   PSI         136 133
>   JvNCnet     137
>   THEnet      139
> Category 3 Regional ENSSs
>   MICHnet     131
> NOTE: More complete information concerning the above is available
> online.
> Sue reiterated that the "decommissionings" are simply organization's
> status as recipient of NSFnet services.  It would be a good idea for
> each affected organization to talk to any or all service providers
> between the organization and the NSFnet for details about other aspects
> of the connection.
> As for the differences between between the categories; category 1
> is primarily CoREN, category 2 is the other regionals, and category 3
> includes supercomputer sites and less firmly planned sites.
> More information welcomed:
>    Anyone got a contract from NSF?
>    Anyone want to tell Sue their NSP?
>    Got some private announcements, need more.
> Want information to forward to NSF even if not public.  Will respect
> privacy, but important to inform NSF even if caveated by "may change
> because..."...
> When asked about the time-lines for the various categories, it was
> stated that NSF wants to have the category 1 sites switched off the
> NSFnet by 31 October.  Beyond that, it is currently phrased as a best
> effort task.
> There was some discussion about CoREN test and transition plans:  Note
> that load and trans-NAP plans are still being worked.  There appears to
> be significant concern about not taking any backwards steps.
> One proposed working bilateral testing agreement. This provoked
> discussion of a tool called offnet (?) (and some nice tools Hans-Werner
> Braun has written).  Some or all of these tools will be made available
> by Merit, however it was stress that use by the regionals is intended to
> instrument local sites, and cannot Merit allow additional to connections
> NSFnet backbone monitoring points.
> ================
> NSFnet statistics:
> Guy Almes
> Traffic is still doubling!  Traffic topped 70 Gigapackets per month in
> May and June.
> Guy noted that December 94 chart will be interesting -- how to measure,
> and what makes sense to measure, new in backboneless regime.  There will
> be a transition from traffic into backbone to traffic into multiple
> whatevers.  Should any resulting numbers be counted? It was observed
> that it would be hard to avoid double counting in such an environment.
> The general consensus was that there is a need to pick an appropriate
> set of collection points:  e.g. transition from BARRnet to/from NSF to
> BARRnet to/from CoREN provider.
> One position contends that we really want customer to BARRnet data
> rather than BARRnet to CoREN provider. However it was observed that this
> is not tractable or trackable.
> Other statistics show:
>   952 Aggregates currently configured in AS690
>   751 announced to AS690
>   6081 class based addresses represented
> There were two additional slides depicting: 1)IBGP stability: solid line
> is percentage of IBGP sessions which have transitions during the
> measurement intervals, and 2) Eternal route stability: solid line is
> external peers.
> Data collection is once again in place on backbone and has been
> operational since 1 June.
> In conversation, it was noted that the Route Servers will be gathering
> statistics from the NAPs.  The Route Servers will be gated engines and
> will be located at the NAPs
> ANS router software activity
>   Software enhancements:
>    RS960 buffering and queueing microcode updated
>    - increased number of buffers, also went from max MTU sized buffers
>      to 2+kB chainable buffers (max FDDI will fit in two buffers with
>      room to spare.
>    - dynamic buffer allocation within card
>     -- two together really improve dynamic burst performance
>    Design for improved end-to-end performance
>    - Based on Van Jacobson and Floyd random early drop work.
>    - End-to-end performance is limited by bandwidth delay product
>    - current protocols deal gracefully with a single packet drop but
>      multiple packets dropped push algorithm into slow start.  With
>      "current" van Jacobson code, even brief congestion in the path will
>      cause things to back off under even low end loadings.
> Work shows that Random Early Drop slows things just enough to avoid
> congestion without putting particular flows into slow-start.
> In passing, Guy noted that he figures the speed of light as roughly
> 125 mi/ms on general phone company stuff.
> The conditions and results were summarized on two slides:
>  + Single flow Van Jacobson random early drop:
>     41Mbps at 384k MTU cross-country (PSC to SDSC?)
>     This code (V4.20L++) is likely to be deployed in a month or so.
> By way of comparison Maui Supercomputer center to SDSC was 31Mbps using
> an earlier version of code with 35 buffers.  Windowed ping with the same
> code did 41Mbps.
>  + Four flow Van Jacobson random early drop:
>     42Mbps at 96kB MTU.
>     All the numbers are with full forwarding tables in the RS960s
> In other news...:
>  + SLSP support for broadcast media completed
>  + Eliminated fake AS requirement for multiply connected peers.
>  + Implemented IBGP server.
> ...
> Pensalken (the SPRINT NAP) is a FDDI in a box.
> ================
> CA*net:
> Eric Carroll
> All but three backbone links are now at T1 and there are dual T1s to
> each US interconnect.
> Pulled in Canadian government networks.  Using Ciscos to build network.
> Still seeing 8-10x US costs for service.  CA*net will grow to DS3 when
> can get and afford (!).
> Numbers on map slide are percentage utilization.  Note that 12 routers
> were installed between mid-March and the end of April and these are
> early numbers.  Note that the British Columbia to NWnet link T1 went to
> saturation in 5 hours. Appears to be due to pent up demand, not
> particular users or programs.
> 7010 roll-out had a lot of support from Cisco.  Ran into some problems
> with FT1 lines in queuing discipline.
> Still doing NNSTAT on an RT for now, but working with a RMON vendor to
> get stuff for new implementation.
> When asked about using inverse multiplexors for increased bandwidth,
> Eric indicated CA*net was currently just using Cisco's load sharing
> to US, however they would be considered when needed.
> A question was raised about CA*net connectivity plans in light of the
> impending NSF transition.  Currently international connectivity is just
> to US, specifically to the US R&E community.  There is some interest
> and discussions for other international connectivity, but cost and other
> factors are an issue.
> CA*net hopes to place NSF connectivity order by next week.
> Biggest concern is the risk of becoming disconnected from what Eric
> termed the R&E affinity group.
> CA*net currently carries ~1000 registered ~900 active networks in
> CA*net.
> CA*net is not AUP free, instead it is based on a transitive AUP
> "consenting adults" model. If two Canadian regionals or providers agree
> to exchange a particular kind of traffic then CA*net has no problem.
> CA*net just joined CIX which prompted a question as to whether Onet is
> a CIX member.  In response Eric characterized CA*net as a cooperative
> transit backbone for regional members.  Therefore CA*net joining CIX is
> somewhat meaningless in and of itself, and, by implication, is only
> meaningful in the context of the regionals and providers interacting
> via CA*net.
> In response to another question, Eric indicated that CA*net is still
> seeing growth.
> ================
> MAE-East Evolution:
> Andrew Partan
> (MAE == Metropolitan Area Ethernet)
> Andrew volunteered to conduct an impromptu discussion of MAE-EAST plans
> There is an effort underway to install a FDDI ring at the MFS Gallows Rd
> PoP and connect that ring to MAE-East using a Cisco Catalyst box.
> MAE-East folks are experimenting with GDC Switches
> Is there a transition from MAE-East to the SWAB?:  Unknown
> (SWAB == SMDS Washington [DC] Area Backbone)
> MFS DC NAP is proposing to implement using NetEdge equipment.
> Any MAE-East plans to connect to MFS NAP?:  Unknown.
> ALTERnet is currently using a Cisco Catalyst box and is happy.
> Time-frame for implementing MAE-East FDDI?:  Not yet, still need
> management approval.  Hope to have a start in next several weeks..
> Those interested in MAE-EAST goings-on and discussions with members
> should join the mailing list MAE-East[-request]@uunet.uu.net
> For what it may be worth, they "had to interrupt MAE-LINK for 5 seconds
> this week to attach an MCI connection".
> In summary (to a question) one would contract with MFS for connectivity
> to MAE-East.  Then one would need to individually negotiate pairwise
> arrangements with other providers with which there was an interest in
> passing traffic.  As far is as known there are no settlements currently,
> but cannot say for sure.
> ================
> Random Bits:
> SWAB (SMDS Washington Area Backbone): In response to point of confusion,
> it was stated that the SWAB bilateral agreement template is just a
> sample, not a requirement
> CIX:  The CIX router is getting a T3 SMDS connection into the PacBell
> fabric.  ALTERnet and PSI are doing so too.  CERFnet currently is on.
> Noted in passing: Each SMDS access point can be used privately, to
> support customers, to enhance backbone, etc....  This could have serious
> implications for other provider agreements.
> CERFnet:  Pushpendra Mohta (? --not at the meeting) is reported to be happy,
> but the group understood that most CERFnet CIRs are at 4Mbps over T3
> entrance facilities.  PacBell was reportedly running two 2OOMbps (is
> this the really correct, seems rather low?) backplane capacity switches
> interconnected with single T3.  Planning to increase provisioning --
> already have a lot of demand.

More information about the NANOG mailing list