APCCIRN-038

APCCIRN-038

1993.10.07

CCIRN Meeting August 23-24,1993

Bodega Bay, California, USA

FINAL MINUTES (21.6.94)

[a summary of each issue is contained in the last paragraph under

that heading]

FORMAL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING THE MEETING

1. Peter Kirstein agreed to find out who can update us on TINA.

2. Barry Leiner and Simon Holland will write a paper discussing

the subtleties of the meaning of the mission of the CCIRN and to

subsequently review the Terms of Reference and Bylaws to make

sure their research/education focus issues are therein addressed.

3. Greg Chartrand agreed to see if the Russian DOE plan could be

circulated outside DOE and if so to send it to Bill Bostwick for

distribution to the CCIRN mailer.

4. Glenn Ricart agreed to send the CCIRN statement on the IEPG to

the IEPG co-chairs. (Done 8/26/93; see statement at end of

minutes.

5. The two remaining co-chairs will liaise with the IEPG on their

position on multiple GIXes.

6. Tomaz Kalin will work with the RIPE NCC to create a position

paper on funding the IANA as a top-level NIC supported by the

(currently 3) regional NICs. This paper will be coordinated with

the IEPG.

OPENING

Host Co-Chair Bill Bostwick opened the meeting at 9:15 a.m. with

introductions and a review of the agenda.

MINUTES OF THE BRUSSELS MEETING

The minutes were approved unanimously. Co-chair Bostwick thanked

Simon Holland of the Commission for the hospitality.

UPDATES

North American (NA) Updates

Peter Ford from Los Alamos National Laboratory on loan to the

National Science Foundation reported on the status of the NSFnet

solicitation. A substantial number of proposals were received;

panels are now being setup to review the proposals. "It would be

nice to get an award made by the end of the year. This is a

target we've set in our minds." George Strawn has gone back to

Iowa State, but is still part-time. Priscilla Huston of Rice

University is the new NSFnet Program Director. "There is no doubt

we will see significant change in the network in the U.S." It

will be more competitive and providers will be more global. Glenn

Ricart asked about international connectivity and transit traffic

after April 1994. Peter Ford replied that ANS will not be turning

off its network in April, and "the NSF will work very hard to

make sure international connectivity will be maintained." Kees

Neggers noted that everything the NSF has done has been very

open, but that the rest of the world doesn't really understand

the consequences. The engineers are only beginning this

discussion today, but until the awards are made,

it isn't clear with whom negotiations should be conducted. Steve

Goldstein said that "International connections made at the level

of the NSFnet backbone will be able to get to their intended

places. Those made at that level will be taken care of. This

applies specifically to the GIX and the West Coast. For example,

the GIX may be bridged to the West Coast. ... The International

Connections Manager agreement with Sprint has 2.5 years to run."

Kees observed that Europe no longer has a body with which to

negotiate connectivity improvements. He asked if NSF would be

willing to act as that body. Peter Ford replied that NSFnet is

attempting to set up a structure that will work both domestically

and internationally.

Bill Bostwick announced Nico Habermann died of a heart attack two

weeks ago; he was chair of the Federal Networking Council.

The ATM service for DoE and NASA Science Internet is "very very

near resolution" and will bring in the 45 Mb/s part of the

Internet.

Steve Goldstein announced that Peru signed a contract with PamAm

Sat during iNET93. Bolivia is very close. Columbia sent the head

of their NSFnet equivalent to iNET and we expect that Columbia

will be on within the next 3-6 months. Venezuela is already

connected, but they may re-connect via PamAmSat in Homestead.

Argentina is presently disconnected due to their local telephone

company. Another group in Argentina may create a second link.

Several countries in Central America may form a star around Costa

Rica. Honduras may get its own connection to Homestead in

adddition to connecting to Costa Rica. Costa Rica will divide

into three subdomains for government, education, and commercial

(RACSA).

The CANARIE project is now officially named CANARIE. It has

received government funding; the agreements to disburse the

funding should be completed in the next few weeks. There should

be T1 links across Canada within a year.

Glenn Ricart announced that 7 U.S. regional networks have formed

an organization called CoREN--Corporation for Regional and

Enterprise Networking. They will create their own inter-regional

connectivity and will be doing an ATM test network in the next

few months. A production timetable depends upon the results of

the NSFnet solicitation. The regionals forming CoREN are: SURAnet

(southeastern US), NEARNET (northeastern US), NYSERnet (New

York), SESQUINET (Texas), MIDnet (middle US), CICnet (Great Lakes

states), BARRNET (California), and Northwestnet (northwestern

US).

Peter Kirstein asked if the carrier-based experiment in

international ATM interconnection (34 Mb/s) (TINA) was working

with the U.S. internet. No one knew of such cooperations, but the

question will be re-raised when the IEPG is present tomorrow.

European (Euro) Updates

Kees Neggers reported that RARE and RIPE are very stable. The

RIPE NCC is doing very well.

Enzo Valente reported on the HEPnet consortium connecting the

high energy physics laboratories in Europe and Russia and the

United States ESnet. Plans are to upgrade the lines to follow the

needs.

An operational unit has been set up under the name DANTE,

as a Limited liability company in Cambridge, England.

Howard Davies is one of the two joint general managers;

Tomaz Kalin is one of the directors.

EBONE now serves as both an important interconnect backbone

in Europe and also as a transcontinental collector/distributor

in Europe. About half the EBONE traffic is destined for the U.S.

and Asia-Pacific. It will continue for this purpose.

EMPB (European multiprotocol backbone) provides both X.25 and IP

at up to 2 Mb/s. The X.25 service has been in place since October

1992. The IP service passed its pilot service test in June 1993

and is presently in operation. Many networks now plan a transition

from Ebone to EMPB. The EMPB service is a result of the COSINE

project and is based on a contract between PTT Telecom (Dutch PTT)

with RARE (to be assigned to Dante). The contract defines function

and performance and provides guarantees. The EMPB service is operated

by Unisource, a subsidiary of the Dutch, Swedisch and Swiss PTT's.

The term "EuropaNET" is to be the term for the complete network

service Dante will provide including EMPB. Work is underway to see

how EMPB can replace EBONE for the intra-European traffic. If use

of EMPB becomes dominant, a transition of international links from

EBONE to EMPB will be contemplated.

EBONE is planning next year's operations. Dante is a member of the

EBONE group and provides a gateway to EMPB. There are some

countries not planning to use Dante and EMPB. Christian Michau

noted that some of these countries want to extend EBONE at least

until EuropanNET has proved itself; others such as France want to

see EBONE continued for the long term. More planning will be done

at the September meeting of the EBONE group. EBONE is willing to

maintain competition with EMPB. Kees Neggers noted that those

wishing to coordinate with Europe will have to work with both

DANTE and a new consortium of 6-7 countries intending to continue

with EBONE including France (RENATER).

Simon Holland expressed concern with the split and urged a single

organizational point of European contact. Sven Tafvelin noted

that getting the European cost structure changed to encourage a

unified network should be a high priority of the Commission.

Howard Davies expressed Dante's long-term ambition to win the

support of all Europe to represent them internationally.

DANTE is currently leasing a virtual private network from

Unisource. Later, PTTs may provide other virtual private

networking options that DANTE may choose to utilize according to

Peter Kirstein.

Steve Goldstein wished noted for the record that "what NSF has

done [in restructuring US connectivity] has not been done any

more unilaterally than what Europe has done [in considering

changing the infrastructure]." Kees Neggers wished to object

noting that the U.S. process has accepted some architectural

principles that, as the process continues, may limit the possible

outcomes. In Europe, the discussion is just starting, and the

CCIRN and all others are invited to provide their input; no

commitments to a process or conclusion have yet been taken. Kees

Neggers does not question the NSF's intent to improve the U.S.

networking situation; he is simply concerned about the possible

outcomes that may follow from their procedure. Howard Davies

noted that the European changes have not affected US connectivity

at all, while the US changes have substantial consequences for

Europe.

Another important development in Europe is that the COSINE

Project has been concluded after three years. Dante is now setup

to provide services. There is no successor for the policy group.

The Commission with Norway and Switzerland has tabled a new

Eureka project called EuroCAIRN to setup a high capacity

infrastructure including gigabit networking. There is also

potential participation by Hungary, Slovenia, and Russia. The

next meeting on EuroCAIRN is September 7. Firm expressions of

interest have been received from all eligible members except

Ireland. It will promote 34 Mb/s within Europe and extend its

interest beyond connectivity into applications.

On the 24th of May, the Hilog met. This is the High Level

Officials Group intended to set high level policy for European

networking. It is as yet unclear to whom Hilog will permanently

report.

Another new development is that NATO is interested in providing

support for networking in central and eastern Europe. The support

is via RARE; the first visible action will be meetings in

Budapest in October and next summer in Moscow. The person

responsible in NATO was previously responsible for Commission

activity in COSINE.

Simon Holland announced changes in Commission DG13. The whole

ESPRIT project has been moved to the industry director general.

That leaves DG13 focus on telecommunications and networking and

support for EuroCAIRN.

Bill Bostwick asked for continuing updates on TINA. Peter

Kirstein took an action to find the right person.

Asian-Pacific (AP)

Kilnam Chon gave the AP update. Fifty to sixty people

participated in an APCCIRN meeting following iNET. An experiment

to form a counterpart of the Internic and RIPE NCC coordinated in

Asia-Pacific (APNIC) is going to last until next spring. At that

time, a decision on its future should be made. The main function

is assigning domain names and network numbers. They will also

start a routing registry soon.

Kilnam Chon noted the need for discussion between Asia and Europe

on issues such as link coordination between them as most of the

transit traffic over the USA is the transit traffic between Asia

and Europe. The APCCIRN decided to include the commercial service

providers. At the next meeting in December, the 8-10 commercial

companies in AP will be asked to make presentations.

Another important issue in AP is local language support.

Curtis Hardyck discussed the Pacific Neighborhood Consortium. It

consists of universities, national libraries, and some education

ministries. It was started by the presidents of 17 institutions

meeting in Seoul two years ago. Since then, it has grown to 40

institutions in 16 countries. The goal is to develop a database

of machine-readable databases. The next meeting is January 17-18

in Hong Kong and will discuss how the databases can be made

available on the Internet if there are no restrictions on use, or

at least available to PNC members if there are restrictions on

use. The PNC is member-supported and contributes the resources of

its library and computing people. Hardyck can provide a brochure

to those interested.

Guam, Macau and Vietnam are being connected to the Internet. The

Phillipines and Indonesia are getting connections via the World

Bank and UN Development Program. The AP region has 80% of the

developing countries, but only 10% of the attendees at the iNET

developing countries workshop were from AP.

APCCIRN covers the countries from the Pacific to India and

Pakistan now. Countries in central Asia and the Middle East are

not covered by either APCCIRN nor EuroCCIRN at this moment. We

need to cover these countries as many of them are not networked.

IAB Updates

Barry Leiner provided an update on iNET93 which was attended by

860 people from 91 different countries. The iNET Workshop for

Developing Countries had 126 attendees from 66 countries. iNET94

wil be in Prague (inet-jenc-request@rare.nl) June 13-17, 1994

jointly with JENC5. ISOC is attempting to acquire a class "A"

relationship with the International Standards Organization (ISO).

NSF has made a small grant to VITA to videotape sessions at the

iNET workshop. If something comes out of this, training videos

would be made available to the community at large. Non-exclusive

rights were given to ISOC.

ISOC Updates

Tomaz Kalin, who is a board member of ISOC, reported on its

status. ISOC will begin supporting the IETF this year with

$300,000. iNET95 may be in Singapore. Only one of the six elected

board members came from outside the United States; this is an

issue of concern. Regional elections are being discussed. An

Executive Director is being sought. A contract for the

Secretariat is to be negotiated with CNRI.

There are still some discussions about whether the IESG is part

of ISOC. ISOC is discussing liability issues it may acquire.

International Cooperation Board (ICB) Updates

The last meeting of the ICB discussed privacy-enhanced mail and

workstation conferencing among the members, but did not raise new

policy issues.

COMMERCIAL / GENERAL SERVICE PROVIDERS (evolved into: ROLE OF THE

CCIRN)

[To skip the discussion and go to the summary conclusion, look

for the last paragraph in this heading.]

In Brussels, the discussion focused on the formation of the CCIRN

by the research and education communities and the need to retain

this focus. Barry Leiner remembered the purpose of the CCIRN

decided in Brussels was to serve the research and education

community. The core membership in the CCIRN was to be those

people whose job was to provide network resources to the research

community. Clearly, the U.S. National Science Foundation and RARE

are among them.

Peter Kirstein observed that India and the Arab countries have

chosen to be connected via commercial carriers and have therefore

opted out of CCIRN. [Comments from Kilnam Chon indicate that this

statement needs to be verified as it is contrary to what the

APCCIRN believes to be true.]

Simon Holland believes there is a need for a research/education

community networking coordination body worldwide whether or not

it relates to the Internet.

Kees Neggers agreed that the CCIRN should not be limited to a

single protocol stack.

At the ISOC board meeting, there was discussion about whether the

ISOC should form an International Operations Board (IOB) or

sponsor a meeting of the likely players. Neither of these

happened.

Barry Leiner suggested the primary role of the CCIRN is to

provide a communications vehicle for fostering international

coordination. In his view it should not be a policy body per se.

Simon Holland suggested that if international policies are not in

place, it will be very confusing for all players. Bill Bostwick

noted the CCIRN has been successful in helping international

groups share policies with one another.

Greg Chartrand sees a large coordination role for science users

of commercial networks.

Barry Leiner provided a three part justification for the

uniqueness of research and education networking. (1) Needs often

outstrip commercial availability (2) Free networking is often

needed to stimulate interdisciplinary and intercontinental

cooperation (3) Networking researchers need testbeds.

Glenn Ricart noted that coordination of ISO level 2 links is no

longer needed within the research and education community alone

because of the growth of the commercial networks. The IEPG may

continue to work in this area (Greg Chartrand). The CCIRN could

evolve either toward inclusiveness in level 2 routing and involve

commercial vendors, or "move up the protocol stack" and work on

research/education issues closer to the application layer. In

Brussels, we seemed to choose the latter approach.

Steve Goldstein recommended that Barry Leiner and Simon Holland

review the CCIRN Terms of Reference in terms of their excellent

comments. They agreed.

Kilnam Chon and Barry Leiner had a discussion agreeing that

networks that serve education and research will also carry

commercial traffic, but that the CCIRN focus is on the research

and education users. Bill Bostwick reminded us we don't really

represent the users, but only their support structure.

James Hutton suggested we should consider passing all lower level

issues down to IEPG and all higher level issues up to an

international version of Hilog. CCIRN tries to progress the

issues of the research community without referring them to

cumbersome government resolution mechanisms.

[Summary of the discussion:]

Barry Leiner stated the summary for the group. "The CCIRN is

about coordinating the provision of networking services to the

education and research community. The CCIRN has formed the IEPG

for the purpose of coordinating the engineering aspects of that

coordination mission. The CCIRN recognizes that coordinating

global engineering requires the participation of the broader

community providing services to the research community including

commercial network providers. The CCIRN needs to be concerned

with management and policy issues revolving around the provision

of service to the education and research community." Simon

Holland and Barry Leiner took an action to write a small paper

discussing the subtlety of these points.

FUNDING THE GLOBAL OPERATIONS OF THE NIC

[Monday discussion]

Many members of the CCIRN are concerned that the root of the

number assignment space is presently concentrated in a single

country's government (the United States).

Steve Goldstein promised that no action will be taken without

full consultation of the international community, and that

delegate registries should be employed.

Barry Leiner suggested the best solution to this issue may be to

ignore it because the root has little or no power if there is

strong delegation.

Rob Blokzijl emphasized the need for well-defined international

policies. He believes the best solution is for a true global NIC.

Tomaz Kalin agreed that there must be an international root, even

if its cost is very small.

Kees Neggers believes that the growth of IP in Europe will be

greatly retarded if the IP version 4 address space is not put

under the control of an international group/party. Barry Leiner

believes that however desirable this is, there is no experience

in operating any global root service.

Bill Bostwick stated his personal opinion that the U.S.

Government does not want to give up control over the IP

networking space.

Rob Blockzijl said that it is painful to see how the APNIC and

RIPE NCC NIC are avoiding the issuance of class "B" network

numbers in accord with international agreement, while the U.S.

regional NIC (which also happens to be the top-level NIC) doesn't

follow these rules and is issuing class "B" numbers without

commensurate restraint. Without a separate root, there is no one

to whom to take these concerns.

Kees Neggers asks all CCIRN members to go home and ask their

government to internationalize the control of IP so that we have

an open IP networking environment. This includes number

assignment and the IETF. If any government disagrees, they should

bring back that disagreement and it will be discussed.

Kilnam Chon agrees and suggests a position paper be drawn up to

this end.

Steve Goldstein and Bill Bostwick agreed that the issue is larger

than the CCIRN; it involves the general provider community.

[Tuesday discussion]

Glenn Ricart opined that the policy issues which still need

resolution are globalizing the root of number space and setting

policy and organization of the GIXes. Kees Neggers reported that

IEPG recommended handling the root issue by globalizing the IANA

(Internet Assigned Number Authority); he is pleased with that

direction.

Tomaz Kalin stated that "we want a symmetrical hierarchical

structure with a top level number authority (perhaps IANA), and a

series of regional NICs (currently 3) which will finance the

IANA." He was asked by co-chair Bostwick and agreed to produce a

proposal for discussion purposes and coordinate it with the IEPG.

JOINT MEETING WITH IEPG

[Steve Wolff of the NSF joined the CCIRN meeting.]

REQUIREMENTS

(Guy Almes excused himself.)

Greg Chartrand explained the requirements for DOE and NASA to

China and Russia. The three regions of interest in Russia are the

Moscow area, St. Petersburg, and Novasibirsk. The top priority is

Novasibirsk. DOE is putting in a link to St. Petersburgh to

address the fusion and high energy requirements.

The Russian plan is through the DOE and is being studied by the

Dept. of Commerce. The China plan should be finished by the DOE

this month.

There is a DOE High Energy Physics link between SLAC (Stanford

Linear Accelerator) and IHEP/Beijing. ESnet is not routed to the

link at present, but the China plan will address this.

Co-chair Bostwick asked if the Russian plan could be distributed

outside DOE. Greg agreed to take an action to see if it were

available and to send it to Bill Bostwick.

In response to a question about routing for the Russian links,

Greg replied that DOE has been told by Commerce that they can

route traffic delivered by a link someone else has installed.

Rob Blokzjil explained that there are three commercial providers

in Russia. All institutions, including non-profits like the

Kurchatov Instititute, use these commercial services.

Steve Goldstein explained that NSF's goal was infrastructure

growth. The (privately financed) International Science Foundation

(ISF) has been active. There is a direct 64 Kb/s link since first

of June from Sprint Networks in Moscow and the ICMnet router

connected to the GIX. The Sprint Networks operation is joint

between Sprint and the Moscow telegraph company. There is a Cisco

router in Moscow with 12 synchronous ports and a terminal server.

GLASnet is already connected to the terminal server. SOVAM will

come up soon; they also have their own link to San Francisco.

Other sources in Moscow have ordered dedicated (19.2 kbps analog)

links to the router. The NSFnet backbone has been unable so far

to pass Russia and China, but the GIX and CIX announce this

traffic to the commercial networks. ISF also plans to assist with

connections from Novosibirsk and with infrastructure in

Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg and a national backbone for Russia.

Also, with Internet demonstration and development projects in

Ukraine, Belarus and other states formerly in the Soviet sphere.

In addition, the ISF has agreed to fund a satellite link at 64

Kb/s from the Russian Academy of Sciences to the High Energy

Physics Institute in Helsinki. It will be available for general

infrastructure. The rates are favorable because the satellite is

turned off at night to save batteries.

ISF and RELARN have agreed to help fund the lion's share of a

Russian-built fiber optic backbone in the phone company conduits

from Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy, through Moscow and the

Russian Academy of Science Presidium Building, through the Sprint

Building, IKI (Institute of Space Research) which will have the

NASA and DOE link, and the M9 switch. The installation will be

done by ROTEC(?) by the end of October and may be in operation as

early as the first part of next year with 15 institutions.

In Novosibirsk, a group had generated 80% of the financing for a

link to Sweden. ISF will provide the other 20% and it will be

installed by October.

The St. Petersburg Ioffe Institute has a proposal into ISF for

local loop funding to match up to the DOE link to Moscow.

ISF is helping Russia look at a national backbone.

In Ukraine, a small program is looking at PC based routers. The

ISF sponsored 21 people to the developing countries workshop.

ISF/NSF has been contacted by a group from Belarus to connect to

Minsk.

The Turks who have a link to the GIX will extend service to

Azerbaidzhan.

There is also a proposal from Georgia, but they don't have power

all day.

Estonia has three or four links out that ought to be

consolidated; Mats Brunel is taking the lead to help there. DFN

is helping with a link into Latvia. ISF will help Lithuania out

with workstations to be used as network servers. In Latvia, Riga

has problems with local wiring and may need radio modems to gain

connectivity.

Milo Medin reported NASA is seeking a general export license for

Internet data. NASA is trying to pull a 256 Kb/s leased line into

IKI and then route it without any restrictions with the export

license.

(Guy Almes returned.)

IEPG REPORT

IEPG Co-Chair Geoff Huston gave the IEPG report. As reported at

the last IEPG, it is no longer feasible to coordinate individual

links. The emphasis is on creating structures that will scale the

routing problem. The route server experiments at MAE-East are

being watched closely.

The registry function is an integral component of policy

integrity and the major support vehicle for external routing.

IEPG suggests wider dissemination of the role of the registry

function within the provider environment.

Peter Ford raised the problem that some commercial providers

shield the identity of clients; this makes it difficult to solve

end-to-end problems or seek out the perpetrators of security

attacks.

Geoff Huston said we're already at the stage where network

providers must either decide to run CIDR or point default outside

their network. Providers must have registry information and CIDR

tools.

Peter Lothberg said that today's routers have a limit of about

60,000 paths. A path is a way to get to a network. Steve

Goldstein reported that 15,000 networks are now routed. Peter

Ford said the growth under CIDR should stay under the growth rate

for memory and router capability. BGP4 needs additional memory,

and turning on BGP4 requires additional memory in many routers.

Guy Almes reported that ANS expects to do BGP4 and CIDR with

aggregation by October on the ANSnet T3 that supports the NSFnet

backbone.

Geoff Huston reported that the MBONE has grown to more than 500

sites. Milo Medin told the group that Sun is coming out with a 30

frame per second MPEG board that has chewed up the LANs at Sun.

Everyone should be aware that additional bandwidth, routing

tools, and limited resources will result from widespread use of

video.

Geoff continued that registry support is required for CLNP

coordination. There are NSAP issues including the breakup of

country NSAP prefixes. Static tables will have to be replaced

with dynamic routing tables.

The CIDR issues are (a) existing registry roles are not operating

consistently with CIDR guidelines. It will be expensive to

deaggregate CIDR routes if allocation is not done carefully.

Effective use of CIDR will require reclamation and renumbering of

the existing old growth forest of numbers.

The IEPG does not intend to devise and enforce rules for service

providers, but does intend to continue work on a document

describing the roles that should be fulfilled by service

providers. Barry Leiner suggested the document would, like the

host requirements document and the router requirement document,

list the functions that should be provided by the service

provider. Daniel Karrenberg said he has started a document

describing current practices that should be extended.

Geoff Huston reported that the IEPG is already functioning as an

internet operations activity in the context of the entire

internet. It should operate in its own right, not under the

CCIRN. There is much that would have to be set up quickly, but

there is a consensus position to move toward a role in the

Internet as a whole. The CCIRN can still send work requests to

IEPG that will be treated seriously.

Barry Leiner gave the CCIRN position. The CCIRN created the IEPG

because it was needed, and the CCIRN is pleased with the results.

Furthermore, the CCIRN recognizes that the provision of

networking service to the research community comes from service

providers who have broader objectives. In some sense, this is why

the IEPG was created as a separate organization and encouraged to

invite commercial activities. Barry further suggested the ISOC

might either be a home or help find a home for the IEPG.

Steve Goldstein wished the IEPG well and suggested they create

their own parent organization. Milo Medin suggested the IEPG

should be an ad hoc organization without a parent; alternatively,

if left under the CCIRN, it wouldn't be bad because the CCIRN has

largely left the IEPG alone.

Steve Wolff noted that the IEPG has always listened to voices

beyond the CCIRN, so what's new? James Hutton added that the

CCIRN will always be a parent in the sense it created the IEPG,

and that IEPG is welcome to live in a room in the CCIRN's house

as long as it is convenient to do so. But everyone recognizes the

IEPG is an independent group that can talk to those whom it

wishes. Hans-Werner Braun said the problem is that there is a

perception that the CCIRN provided controls and limits to the

IEPG; the divorce aids with the perception issue.

Bill Bostwick said the issue is not perception, but reality. If

IEPG will continue, it needs funding and support. The CCIRN is

willing to support it in this way even while the IEPG has far

wider contacts and responsibilities than a connection with the

CCIRN would suggest.

Barry Leiner suggested getting a charter from the CCIRN but

operating globally. Peter Lothberg said there are others who

should participate in the IEPG but can't because their parents

don't like the religion of IEPG's CCIRN parent. Guy Almes

appreciates the collegiality between the CCIRN and IEPG. At the

policy level, he urges the CCIRN to take on important policy

issues.

Geoff concluded by asking for support for time for productive

navel gazing about where the IEPG fits in.

[The discussion continued with the CCIRN alone plus Steve Wolff

and Milo Medin.]

Considerable discussion ensued that if IEPG wants more than

voluntary compliance, it will have to have a strong parent. Milo

Medin noted that this issue is taking time and attention away

from important issues and that the current arrangement isn't

broken; neither is the 'breakaway' feeling universal among IEPG

members.

Steve Wolff said the power of ideas is what empowers the IEPG.

When policy issues arise, they will take those issues to their

managers. There needs to be a forum then of their managers to

work out these policy issues. The CCIRN should be a forum for

their managers.

Barry Leiner noted that while the CCIRN may not be the suitable

home for the IEPG, the IEPG should weigh heavily the value of

having a home organization.

Sven Tafvelin is of the opinion that ISOC is the only

international organization suitable for operational issues.

The group agreed on the following summary statement: "The IEPG

was formed under the auspices of the CCIRN to provide global

engineering coordination. The CCIRN wishes the IEPG to continue

to operate independently to make the global internet work. The

CCIRN wishes to continue to liaise with them on policy issues."

CCIRN MEETING

CCIRN ORGANIZATION AND ISSUES TO BE PROGRESSED

Bill Bostwick announced this would be his last meeting, and that

he'd make a recommendation to the Federal Networking Council

about the future of the CCIRN at its September meeting. Bill will

be moving on to other endeavors.

Barry Leiner raised the issue of whether a single chair would be

better than the present three regional co-chairs. Kees Neggers

noted that there is effectively a single chair based on the

location of the upcoming meeting. James Hutton suggested the

co-chairs act as an executive committee between meetings.

There was some consternation expressed about the progress made by

the CCIRN between meetings.

Kees Neggers made the point that there is a great deal of

operational coordination that happens informally because the

CCIRN meetings are held. He noted that detracters don't have

operational roles and don't understand the value of the meeting

to operational people.

GIX

[Monday discussion]

Kilnam Chon asked for a second GIX on the west coast of the

United States.

Glenn Ricart explained two kinds of GIX interconnects: (a) those

where all networks connect to all GIXes (like the FIX, CIX, and

NSFnet NAPs), and (b) those where the GIXes are connected to each

other. In the second case, there is a political problem of

deciding what organization provides the inter-GIX connectivity,

its bandwidth, its funding, and its operation. These issues are

avoided in the first case.

Rob Blokzjil explained two roles of the GIX: (1) exchanging

packets and (2) exchanging routing information. Therefore, some

networks may choose to have a 9.6 Kb/s line to the GIX just to

exchange routing information.

[Tuesday discussion]

James Hutton proposed the CCIRN set a requirement or mandate that

there be multiple distributed GIXes. Bill Bostwick repeated that

the CCIRN has asked the IEPG for a multiple GIX solution.

However, the group is of divided opinion as to whether a report

of single GIX is acceptable or not. The two remaining co-chairs

will liaise with the IEPG on their position on multiple GIXes.

There was a consensus that the CCIRN requests a global

architecture that supports more than one GIX. The co-chairs will

liaise with IEPG.

Geoff Huston was asked to join the meeting to discuss GIX. A

summary of his report follows and it was accepted by the CCIRN.

The GIX solves a routing problem by allowing both bilateral

exchange of routes and also communication with a route server.

The architecture can be extended to have several such

environments. The relative locations and policies of network

identifiers are traded across that structure. It doesn't

necessarily pass traffic. The preference is that the GIX is the

first resort of addressing and the last resort of traffic flow.

To extend to multiple locations, what is going on is

synchronizing the exchange of routing information. To solve this,

one can use a level 2 bridge across two such points and simply

trade BGP over the connections. This is viable if traffic is not

passed. Engineering solutions are being proposed to synchronize

address and policy knowledge across a number of sites.

There is a traffic handling problem that remains. The west coast

structures have a diversity of adopted structures. Transit in a

post-NSFnet world is problematical, and IEPG is looking toward

how a well-architected west coast structure could work in May

1994. Geoff responded that one solution is to purchase a portion

of the Washington MFS Ethernet onto the west coast at level 2.

Therefore, additional GIX points can be created for enough

dollars. Milo Medin asked for clarification, and Bill Bostwick

led a consensus statement that "the CCIRN will deal with transit

traffic as a policy issue as it arises and will also deal with it

if the IEPG tells the CCIRN there is an issue."

THANK YOUs

Kees Neggers led a round of applause for Bill Bostwick's kicking

off the CCIRN. Barry Leiner is also thanked for the preparation

of the logistics. He apologized for the previous night being so

cold and windy.

MEETING FREQUENCY AND NEXT MEETING

It was agreed that the baseline meeting frequency will be once

per year with additional meetings called as determined by the

co-chairs as needed by the workload. Adjacency to iNET is viewed

as desirable by the majority of members. A minority expressed an

interest to have the meeting adjacent with other networking

meetings such as IETF.

The next meeting is tentatively set for June 20-21, 1994 with

location to be set by the European chair.

CCIRN ATTENDEES

"Shoichiro ASANO (NACSIS)" <Asano@nacsis.ac.jp

"Rob Blokzijl (RARE)" <K13@nikhef.nl

"Bill Bostwick (NACCIRN)" <bos@lanl.gov

"Greg Chartrand (SSCL/DOE/ESSC)" <Greg@sscvx1.ssc.gov

"MunHou CHEW (NSTB/Singapore)" <MunHou@solomon.technet.sg

"Kilnam Chon (ANS/Korea)" <Chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr

"Jim Conklin (CREN/BITNET)" <Conklin@cren.net

"Howard Davies (RARE/Dante)" <H.E.Davies@exeter.ac.uk

"Steve Goldstein (NSF)" <Goldstein@nsf.gov

"Shigeki GOTO (JPNIC/APCCIRN)" <GOTO@ntt-20.ntt.jp

"Alan Greenberg (CA*net)" <Alan@vm1.McGill.ca

"Curtis Hardyck (Pacific Neighborhood Consortium/APCCIRN)"

<Hardyck@violet.berkeley.edu

"Simon Holland (European Commission)" <SHo@dg13.cec.be

"James Hutton (RARE/JNT)" <J.Hutton@jnt.ac.uk

"Tomaz Kalin (RARE)" <Kalin@rare.nl

"Peter Kirstein (ICB)" <Kirstein@cs.ucl.ac.uk

"Barry Leiner (IAB)" <Leiner@nsipo.nasa.gov

"Takayasu MATSUZAKI (APCCIRN/NISTEP/STA)" <Matsuzaki@vnet.ibm.com

"Milo Medin (NASA)" <Medi@nasa.gov [Tuesday only]

"Sandy Merola (Guest from ESnet)" <Merola@lbl.gov

"Christian Michau (RARE/Renater)" <Michau@urec.fr

"Kees Neggers (RARE/SURFnet)" <neggers@surfnet.nl

"Hualin Qian (APCCIRN)" <QianHL%bepc2@scs.slac.stanford.edu

"Glenn Ricart (FARNET)" <Glenn_Ricart@umail.umd.edu

"Sven Tafvelin (RARE)" <Tafvelin@ce.chalmers.se

"Enzo Valente (RARE/GARR/INFN)" <Valente@infn.it

IEPG ATTENDEES

"Akiko AIZAWA (NACSIS)" <Akiko@nacsis.ac.jp

"Guy Almes (ANS)" <Almes@ans.net

"Hans-Werner Braun (SDSC)" <HWB@sdsc.edu

"Joe Burrescia (ESnet)" <Burrescia@es.net

"Che-Hoo Cheng (UPCC/HARNET Chinese University of Hong Kong)"

<CheHooCheng@cuhk.hk

"Milton Choo (Singapore Technet)" <Milton@solomon.technet.sg

"Bob Coggeshall (Hong Kong Supernet)" <Coggs@hk.super.net

"Richard Colella (NIST)" <Colella@nist.gov

"Peter Dawe (PIPEX)" <Peter@pipex.net

"Tim Dixon (RARE)" <dixon@rare.nl

"Peter S. Ford (Los Alamos +1-505-665-0058)"

<Peter@goshawk.lanl.gov

"Kin Fung (UPCC/HARNET Chinese University of Hong Kong)"

<MingFung@cuhk.hk

"Elise Gerich (Merit)" <EPG@merit.edu

"John Haulker (Tuia)" <J.Houlker@waikato.ac.az

"Farooq Hussaini (SPRINT)" <Farooq@icm1.icp.net

"Geoff Huston (AARNET)" <GIH@aarnet.edu.au

"Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC)" <Daniel@ripe.net

"Sun-Young Ko (KT)" </dev/null

"Peter Lothberg (EBONE)" <roll@stupi.se

"Bill Manning (Sesquinet)" <BManning@rice.edu

"Jun Matsukata (ISAS/SINET)" <JM@eng.isas.ac.jp

"Keith Mitchell (PIPEX)" <Keith@pipex.net

"Jun Murai (WIDE)" <Jun@wide.ad.jp

"Masaya NAKAYAMA (Univ. of Tokyo/JPNIC)

"<nakayama@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

"Joo Y. Song (Hananet)" <JYSong@ring.kotel.co.kr

"Bernard Stockman (EBONE)" <boss@ebone.net

"Claudio Topolcic (FEPG/CNRI)" <Topolcic@cnri.reston.va.us

"Jack Waters (SURAnet)" <Waters@sura.net

"Weiping Zhao (NACSIS)" <Zhao@nacsis.ac.jp

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CCIRN Statement on IEPG Relationship

As the recording secretary for the CCIRN at the Bodega Bay

meeting, I was asked to communicate to the IEPG co-chairs the

following statement by the CCIRN regarding relationships with the

IEPG. .... Glenn Ricart

"The IEPG was formed under the auspices of the CCIRN to provide

global engineering coordination. The CCIRN wishes the IEPG to

continue to operate independently to make the global internet

work. The CCIRN wishes to continue to liaison with them on policy

issues."