- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE NCC Quarterly Report Issue 2 Available
by Daniel Karrenberg 19 Oct '92

19 Oct '92

The second Quarterly Report of the RIPE NCC is now available. It can be fetched from the RIPE document store as document ripe-73 in both PostScript and plain ASCII. RIPE documents can be found in directory ripe/docs/ripe-docs. The differences with the draft which was distributed at the RIPE meeting are minor. Most notable are additional graphics in Appendix H. As usual the NCC welcomes comments and suggestions.

1 0

How to get a free EMPB connection to your network
by Peter Lothberg 14 Oct '92

14 Oct '92

EMPB are offering their customers a network with guareanteed quality of service (well 200kb/s on a 2m link). Any one that buys a EMPB connection to his workstation, needs to asure that this connection, actually makes the IP arcitecture as a whole fully functional. This means that EMPB has to provide connectivity to all nameservers as an example. If EMPB connects through something that has no quality of service guarantees at all, the quality of the FUNCTIONALTY provided is the sum of the transit networks. So I suggest that all regional/RBS etc networks in the world choices to offer the EMPB providor to connect to them locally, at the expences of EMPB, so that EMPB customers can reach a particular RBS-region through EMPB controled paths. Otherwice it would be really hard for the EMPB providor to live up to any of the guarantees for quality of service, if they relay on such a thing as the unreliable Ebone. For those wo don't follow me, here is a summary; If you want a free EMPB connection, so that EMPB customers can talk to you, just excercice the right of implementing your policy in the RBS, and offer EMPB a free ethernet connector on your central routers. -Peter If you talk to EMPB through the Ebone, you are using your resources to subsidise the EMPB providor.

1 0

RARE UPDATE, Nr.7
by bersee＠rare.nl 12 Oct '92

12 Oct '92

***************** A RARE UPDATE No.7, October 1992 ***************** NEWS FROM THE COA by Josefien Bersee at the RARE Secretariat The 24th meeting of the RARE Council of Administration took place on September 24/25 in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia. The major results of the meeting are summarized below. _________________________________________________________ MEMBERSHIP MATTERS Two new members and two changes in existing membership were accepted in Bratislava. The Turkish national research network TUVAKA and the Croatian CARNet are new Full National Members. Poland and Hungary changed their membership status from Associate to Full National Member. This brings the total number of RARE members to 41. EXECUTION TECHNICAL PROGRAMME GUARANTEED By accepting a 33% membership fee increase the CoA has guaranteed basic support for the execution of the RARE Technical Programme. Execution of a Technical Programme is felt to be an important factor determining RARE's influence on the development of future research networking activities. TECHNICAL STRUCTURE The CoA decided to accept the slightly changed Technical Structure as proposed by the RTC: the establishment of one Multi-Media Working Group instead of the previous two (on Interactive Multimedia and Multimedia Document Transfer), and the establishment of a Working Group on Character Sets. The following RARE Working Groups (followed by the name of its convenor) are now officially established: International Character Sets (WG-CHAR), Borka Jerman-Blazic Multimedia (WG-IMM), John Dyer Information Services and User Support (WG-ISUS), Jill Foster Lower-Layers Technology (WG-LLT), Piet Bovenga Mail & Messaging (WG-MSG), Harald Alvestrand Network Applications Support (WG-NAP), Paul-Andre Pays Network Operations (WG-NOP), Bernhard Stockman Security Technology (WG-SEC), Klaus Truoel RARE welcomes anyone who wishes to join one of the above-mentioned working groups. Joining is easy: send electronic mail to: mailserver(a)rare.nl containing in the body of the message: SUBSCRIBE wgname yourfirstname yourlastname where wgname is the abbreviation for the name of the working group. SIGNING OF 2Mbps CONTRACT RARE accepts to sign and manage the 2Mbps contract with the CEC on behalf of those national networks which will use EC funds in support of their participation in the 2Mbps pilot service. The 2Mbps pilot is part of the European Multi-Protocol Backbone (EMPB) service. OPERATIONAL UNIT The CoA agreed that RARE should act as a legal body on behalf of the Operational Unit under establishment, under the condition that shareholders are accepting the commercial risks. Shareholders should also organize the provision of management of the execution of OU activities. RELATION RARE/RIPE REDEFINED RARE and RIPE will remain independent bodies. The CoA agreed that RARE will continue to rely on RIPE for the coordination of IP activities - and not establish its own IP coordination group - , while RIPE will rely on the RARE Technical Committee and IETF for the setting up of a technical development plan. To enable close cooperation between RIPE and the RTC, RARE has invited RIPE to appoint a representative on the RTC. With regard to the RIPE NCC, the CoA agreed that it should remain under the umbrella of RARE until at least the end of 1993, even if the funds for operation of the RIPE NCC were to be channelled via the Operational Unit. LIAISON WITH ISODE CONSORTIUM RARE will become a member of the ISODE Consortium. This organization has been founded to support further development of ISODE, a package of OSI upper layer software and applications. Many organizations in the research community have used the ISODE as a tool for working with a range of OSI applications. COMBINED JENC5/INET94 The CoA has agreed that the 5th Joint European Networking Conference should be organized in combination with INET 94. The REC is asked to proceed with the investigation of the Prague offer to host the event, and to negotiate with the Internet Society on the basis of that proposal.

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. > > 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