Minutes of the 1st TF-NGN meeting 20-21 November 2000 Renater, Paris, France

Valentino Cavalli, Kostas Anagnostakis, Issue 2
 

Table of Contents

•     Attendees
•     Apologies
• 1.  Welcome and GEANT update
• 2.  TEN155 Update
• 3.  AF-based Services
• 4.  Delay-Jitter sensitive based services
• 5.  QoS Measurement
• 6.  Over-provisioned network performance
• 7.  Premium IP service
• 8.  Multicast
• 9.  Policy control + Bandwidth brokerage
• 10. Flow based monitoring
• 11. Optical Networking
• 12. QoS and Multicast
• 13. IP VPN service
• 14. MPLS-based GCS service
• 15. IPv6
• 16. Coordinated equipment  loan discussion
• 17. Date of  Next Meeting
• 18. Any other business
• 19. List of work items
• 20. Open actions

Attendees

Apologies

Online presentations: http://www.terena.nl/task-forces/tf-ngn/presentations1.html
 

1. Welcome and GEANT update

The introduction was followed by a brief discussion about the organisation of the task force and the relation between Geant and TF-NGN. Tiziana asked if TF-NGN is a joint task force of TERENA and DANTE. Howard and Karel said that the issue was discussed by the NRENs in the Geant Policy Committee and in the TERENA General Assembly. Details were not finalized yet but essentially the NRENs wanted DANTE and TERENA to ensure continuity with the activity done in the past. Mauro took the floor and said the practical operating step in planning the activity was mapping the work items onto Geant deliverables. Some of them were due already in spring 2001, so the group needed to optimize the resources and start working. Karel expressed appreciation for the practical emphasis but remarked that some people in TF-NGN are volunteers and therefore it was also needed to listen to their ideas. Olav remarked on the openness of the Geant approach as it appeared to be at this meeting, in comparison to the apparent limitations expressed by DANTE at the TF-TANT meeting in Dublin.

Howard updated the group about the status of Geant. He said continuity of funding was ensured by the EC and the contract was signed in October. Geant was officially launched during the IST conference in Nice on 6th November 2000. About the procurement Howard said 44 offers were received, out of which 16 contained proposals for pan-European connectivity and 9 offered regional connectivity, essentially to the CEE countries. Technical evaluation and clarifications with almost all connectivity providers had been carried out. The deadline for the bidders to provide supplementary information was 24-11-2000 and therefore contract negotiations could start if enough information was available early in  December. In relation to the Geant obligations, the offers were covering  all fifth framework programme (FP5) countries, though with some cost issues.  The target 2.5 Gbps connectivity in 8 locations in 2001 was matched as well  as the target of tens (or hundreds) of Gbps in 4 years. The offers about  improved resilience looked good but still with some pending cost issues.

In answering a question from Michael, Howard explained that Geant will provide European Distributed Access, namely co-location for connection from external (mostly USA) networks. In reply to questions about provision of fibers, Howard said in all cases the 2.5-10 Gbps offer was based on wavelength with STM-16 presentation.
 

2. TEN155 Update

3. AF-based Services

AF testing would be mostly aimed at verifying capability before defining services and control resources distribution. The factors affecting performance would be studied too. However, before real testing can be done the group needs to understand the correct usage of WRED and markers. The testing plan contains the following tasks:
 

1. WRED tuning, packet dropping - comparison against RIO3;
2. TCM tuning;
3. aggregation concerns - how does aggregation at the core affects AF assurance?- inject pre-marked traffic into core routers;
4. remarking concerns;
5. can AF offer something to individual TCPs?
6. can AF assure better treatment of source-marked green information?

Timelines were not defined, but in the discussion it was pointed out that they should be coordinated with other QoS tests. It was suggested to move task 5 before task 3.
 

4. Delay-jitter sensitive based services

• 1st Quarter 2001, task 1, pre-class shaping, study of accuracy and granularity of shaping to avoid burstiness and impact on device performance;
• 2nd Quarter 2001, task 2, high speed to low speed testing;
• 2nd Quarter 2001, task 3, de-aggregation;
• 4th Quarter 2001, task 4, enforcement of delay and Jitter guarantee, a study based on predictive approach about how to build QoS services.

Leader: Tiziana Ferrari, INFN-CNAF
Other participants: INFN-GARR, ENST Bretagne, GRnet
 

5. QoS measurement

Victor said there were a few open issues regarding relation with other TF-NGN activities and these would need to be studied with some accuracy. Roberto remarked that this work is related to a Geant deliverable that will be coordinated by Simon Leinen.

ACTION 1.1 Victor to work out a concrete plan for QoS measurement within two weeks and also to co-ordinate with Simon, as this work is relevant to flow/network measurement.

Leader: Victor Reijs, HEAnet/SURFnet
Other participants: INFN-CNAF, INFN-GARR, ENST Bretagne, RedIRIS

Time frame: it was observed that the work-plan is still rather abstract, but the activity would require at least one year.
 

6. Over provisioned network performance

It was discussed whether this work item was overall separate from other network monitoring items or not. Tiziana had put forward the original proposal and she meant to keep it separate, to be able to understand the behaviour of production-like networks. The plan needed to be better defined, and GRnet took responsibility for this. Tiziana and Mauro volunteered to contribute in the definition of tasks and test plan.

ACTION 1.2 GRnet to clarify plans for the OvpN activity within two weeks, + define network and resources requirements.

ACTION 1.3 Tiziana and Mauro to provide support to GRnet in the definition of tasks and test plan for the OvpN activity.

Leader: Tryfon Chiotis, GRnet
Other participants: INFN-CNAF, INFN-GARR, HEAnet/SURFnet, Uni-Utrecht
 

7. Premium IP service

• delay ipdv (instantaneous packet delay variation - jitter);
• packet loss, bandwidth;
• provisioning, BER, availability;
• MTV size (fragmentation) duplicate and out of order packets;
• security, shaping.

ACTION 1.4 Tijani to provide pointer to EURESCOM document with metrics for defining QoS services. - DONE

It was remarked that the proposed architecture for the premium IP service in Geant would be based on an Over-provisioned network with classifying policy at the edge and policy/tagging at congestion points for Ingress traffic. Tiziana asked if it was not possible to apply an alternative model, like the "policing everywhere" used in Diffserv, but Mauro said there would be a need to limit the application of that model because it is too much resource intensive. Dimitrios remarked that the model should support different SLAs in order to address all different NRENs requirements in terms of access capacity. However, Mauro would like to implement a static model because it would be more practical, simple and easy to manage.

ACTION 1.5 Mark Janssen to provide pointer to Internet draft/s submitted by the TEQUILA project.
- Action not needed, a pointer to the document was sent by Simon Leinen on 13 November 2000.

There was a general discussion about the relation between the premium IP service and work items of AF, delay-jitter testing and OvpN. Overall, there is a need to schedule the respective results in a coordinated way. It might be a tight schedule, but input for the premium IP deliverable should be available one month before the date of submission to the Commission. Task one and two in Octavio`s plan for AF testing would need to be ready earlier than originally promised. Task 1 in Tiziana`s plan was due at the 1st Quarter of 2001, it would provide input to the Geant deliverable. For the OvpN it was observed that there might be national test-beds already available. SURFnet would be one, and Mauro said that Italy would probably be ready in one month from the meeting date. Tryfon would need to take them into account when providing plans for OvpN.

ACTION 1.6 Octavio, Tiziana, Tryfon and Mauro to coordinate testing with deadlines for the premium IP deliverable.

Tiziana said she would like to remove the current Diffserv infrastructure and build a different model capable of dealing with high capacity and production-like networks.

Leader: Mauro Campanella, INFN-GARR
Other participants: ENST Bretagne, INT, DFN, GRnet, RUS Uni-Stuttgart
 

8. Multicast

The proposal developed by Lada contains four items: monitoring tools, reliable multicast schemes, longer term tasks related to address allocation schemes and security, and finally information sources for end-users.

Two monitoring tools were discussed. The "experimental group monitoring" implementation tool available at Dante http://www.dante.net/mbone/groups  could be used to measure the amount of multicast traffic transmitted  between NRENs. However the tool works at its limits now and software  needs to be refined before it can be more widely used. A better option  would be to use a monitoring tool, developed by students at the University  of Bohemia, which is able to collect information from several sources and  about several protocols, including SDR, SNMP and Netflow. The code for the agent part can be downloaded from the site  http://mcastmon.zcu.cz.

Reliable multicast schemes should be provided to support applications for bulk data transfer, for instance, in distributing large software packages, Usenet News etc. Lada mentioned a number of possible approaches to support them, including ACK and NACK schemes, redundant data FEC/erasure codes, combined layered schemes, security and digital signatures, IGMPv3.

The third sub-item in Lada`s presentation was related to longer term tasks like study address allocation schemes for IPv4 IPv6 and multicast and firewalls. The last sub-item is related to a Geant deliverable, due in April 2001, about the provision of an information source for multicast end-users. The activity should help in defining problems, providing information on end-station configuration, consolidated documentation, and also distribution of tools.

ACTION 1.7 Lada to start collecting information about info-sources for end users from people providing multicast services to end users; to host web site; to send pointer to the multicast list.

ACTION 1.8 Robert to provide information about LAN set-up; Dimitrios to provide pointer to Multicast information collected by Patrick de Muynck (formerly from BELNET).

ACTION 1.9 Roberto to change prefix of mailing lists at DANTE from qtp- to ngn-.

The plan presented by Robert was focused on backbone issues. The first activity would investigate source specific multicast (SSM). This is being standardised in an IETF activity, but applications are already available. The architecture differs from traditional multicast in that it implements a one-to-many (from one single source to many receivers) instead of a many-to-many approach. Robert added that SSM needs IGMPv3 and also special  allocated address space. Implementations of IGMPv3 are available for Linux,  FreeBSD, Windows (lite version) and are supported by Cisco IOS 12.1.5(T).

The second activity would focus on BGMP inter-domain multicast routing with the goal of building a bi-directional shared tree of domains. The activity would also address transition from current MSDP/MBGP (which does not scale) to BGMP, but with lower priority. In fact, related standardisation work is still idle since an IETF draft in March 2000 and no implementations are known so far.

The SSM task is a short-term activity and the test should start immediately, whilst the BGMP one is longer-term, so the group should just follow the standardisation work and wait for implementations. The draft work-plan presented by Robert also contains other long-term tasks related to Malloc and multicast in MPLS environment. The activity in both areas should be limited to finding and evaluating implementations.

Leaders: Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET & Robert Stoy, DFN
Other participants:

• for the info-source set up for end users: GRnet
• for installing mcastmon monitoring tool: SWITCH, CERN (depending on specific equipment requirements), RedIRIS, DANTE, Uninett, GRnet
• for backbone SSM testing: DANTE, Uninett

9. Policy control + Bandwidth brokerage

Mark Janssen reported on an ongoing project on "QoS service negotiation and invocation on multiple domains". The goals of the project are to look at a real life service creation scenario,identify additional infrastructural requirements and determine the impact of management traffic on the network. The starting point of this work is the definition and implementation of SLAs and SLSs to evaluate what kind of inter and intra domain communication is required for this task. The real life scenario under consideration is the creation of VLL connections between Utrecht and Juelich. The work plan includes a detailed specification of the service negotiation and invocation process at the message level and simulation of this scenario in the NS network simulator. The model that will be used includes SLS negotiation between neighboring domains only. At this point, Mauro Campanella commented that similar "per-hop" approaches are sometimes criticized on their performance implications and lack of end-site control, but would probably be a reasonable initial approach for the purposes of this project. SLS negotiation would have to follow the peer-to-peer route, obtained from the underlying network's routing information. The model is kept simple with no further assumptions on the network core, as it is seen as just another domain/AS. The requirements for this task and the questions to the meeting participants were whether SLAs are actually in effect between NRNs. The response to this was that no SLA is currently supported at least from the perspective that it is seen in this project, but several participants of TF-NGN follow closely the SLS activity of TEQUILA, an project in the IST programme, which could provide some basic input in this direction. The timeline for the project is to work out the message model before November, build the simulation until January 2001 and perform an in-depth analysis of the interactions, overheads and potential problems between February and March 2001.

Leader: Cees de Laat and Wim Sjouw, University of Utrecht

Definition of the tasks postponed until six months from now, i. e. April 2001
 

10. Flow based monitoring

ACTION 1.10 Victor to incorporate active network measurement in the QoS measurement plan.

The plan coordinated by Simon would contain three sub-items: the first one about continuation of Netflow testing and two more topics. In relation to the first sub-item Simon proposed to investigate performance and scalability of the accounting system, by looking at different implementations (Cisco RSP/VIP2, PXF, GSR, Juniper, etc.), as well as by taking into account sampling and router-based aggregation. He pointed out the need to address infrastructure requirements and time-scale as well as the availability of routers. Besides SWITCH, DANTE expressed an interest in this activity.

The second sub-item in Simon`s proposal was to analyse data passing through TEN-155. This activity could start immediately, based on the usage of the set-up in Switzerland. It would focus on TCP throughput distributions, DOS detection and stateful application recognition (Napster, Gnutella, etc).  Besides SWITCH, DANTE and RedIRIS expressed an interest in this activity.

The third sub-item was concerned with Backbone network management tools.  Simon mentioned as an example the multicast visualisation at TEN-155. The  goal of this activity would be primarily SNMP-based network monitoring, and the work would be focused on activities like comparing tools and providing documentation. Besides SWITCH, Uninett expressed an interest in this activity.

Leader: Simon Leinen, SWITCH
Other participants:

• in performance/scalability testing: DANTE
• in analysis of TEN-155 data: DANTE, RedIRIS
• in backbone Network Management tools: Uninett

11. Optical networking

The second area of activity includes a planning task about getting trans-boarder fibers available and a hands-on task. The target time frame for the whole activity will be one year, but it is not likely that one can have a full European coverage by that time. Anyway, the first task would last no more than nine months, with the aim of planning trials at least in a few countries. The agreed time scale should be suitable to assess whether real experience could be achieved on an international test-bed on building, operating and piloting optical networking services. The test-bed infrastructure would not need to be a permanent one, but it should be available for a limited time, from a few weeks to some months. The activity plan should be flexible to accommodate that. Backup lines from carriers could also be used.

Howard commented on the practical part of Victor`s plan, pointing out the need to focus it and start collaborating with partners and NRENs as soon as possible. There was a discussion involving Mauro, Dimitrios, Juergen and others about WDM and optical switching. Dimitrios said all vendors providing WDM in Greece were changing their management systems to become IP aware. Juergen said investigating WDM is not interesting anymore and there is a real need to study optical switching. Victor answered to a question from Mauro saying that he would like the group to investigate that. However, there were some general concerns about the difficulty and expensiveness of getting experience in this field.

Leader: Victor Reijs, HEAnet/SURFnet
Other participants: GRnet and SWITCH for the information gathering sub-item, INFN-CNAF for the definition of the practical experience sub items.

ACTION 1.11 Victor to find partners and make plans for the practical experience with optical networking.
 

12. QoS and multicast

During the discussion Victor pointed out that the Chariot measurement tool he is using in his QoS measurements supports multicast stream test too. He would investigate Chariot multicast support in more detail, and also if the tool could be provided for free to TF-NGN participants. Part of the discussion was about keeping this work item separate from both QoS premium IP and multicast, even if it has interesting links to all activities. There was consensus about keeping the work separate under the coordination of Robert. An additional, general remark from Tiziana was that this item concerns engineering services and for that reason in her original proposal it was explicitly left out from the other QoS items. She said it is a good application case, very useful for NRENs, but also difficult to implement.

ACTIONS 1.12 Victor to investigate the Chariot monitoring tool support for multicast, and see if it can be provided for free to the TF-NGN group.

ACTION 1.13 Robert, Tiziana and Lada to refine the work-plan for QoS & Multicast, which has relations with both premium IP and multicast services but was decided to be kept separate from them.

Leader: Robert Stoy, DFN

Other participants: INFN-CNAF, CESNET
 

13. IP VPN service

Potential applications are end-to-end QoS, virtual IP leased lines (VIPLL proposed by Clarence Fisfils from Cisco) or transatlantic bandwidth management. General comments were that Dimitrios presented different options but it was not clear who wanted to test them. It was found to be interesting work to be looked at in the premium IP service, but not immediately. The plan still needed further definition.

ACTION 1.14 Dimitrios to work out a more specific proposal and see what can be related to the premium IP service.

Leader: Dimitrios Kalogeras, GRnet

Other participants not identified yet.
 

14. MPLS-based GCS service

Herve resumed to describe the initial goals for the MPLS GCS activity. These are the replacement of the existing point-to-point ATM PVCs with IP tunnels while retaining bandwidth guarantees. QoS measurements under specific conditions need to be carried out. Scalability, taking into account the management issues, must be studied. Finally, a comparison between the GCS capability with the current ATM-based service needs to be done. The first tests are already being done using a proprietary CISCO solution, under NDA.

More detail was provided on the GCS testbed that is being set-up and the planned signalling tests. The objective, again, is to separate the guaranteed service traffic from normal traffic. For this, the configuration of tunnels and the admission control function need to be tested. Also, the relation to IP forwarding, preemption and resilience functions need be tested. For signalling, IGP flooding with QoS advertisements and the mechanism convergence properties need to be evaluated. For scalability, some bound on the number of tunnels that can be setup without implications will also be investigated. For preemtion among guaranteed bandwidth tunnels and best-effort tunnels, a bandwidth allocation strategy needs to be defined. For IP forwarding, static routes as well as BGP next hop can be used. For resilience, one currently available  option is to use "fast reroute". For the QoS testing, it is planned to  measure QoS indicators. The ability of providing bandwidth guarantees will  be verified. The potential for providing delay and jitter guarantees in GCS  will also be evaluated. Scalability will be evaluated per interface QoS.

A discussion followed on this, where several issues were raised by Mauro and the rest of the participants, on the relationship between Premium IP and GCS, the impact on TCP traffic, how GBit/s speeds will influence this activity. On the relationship to Premium IP Mauro noted the option of aggregating traffic from several guaranteed bandwidth tunnels into a single DS queue. It was also discussed whether GCS will provide bandwidth guarantees only. Here, Herve argued that GCS might be able to provide delay and jitter guarantees. It was also discussed that shaping might be needed somewhere in the network if it's not TCP traffic. It was also discussed whether GCS provides bandwidth guarantees only. Mauro stressed the need to focus on a minimal service to be deployed as soon as possible and asked the participants to clarify what is really needed, a mapping of the ATM CBR service on an IP-only infrastructure, while retaining the scalability problems of static VPs, or something that would go further than that.

Herve described the QoS testing plan that will be carried out in cooperation with other groups within Geant as well as the SEQUIN project. What is needed here is input, recomendations and test scenarios. It is also necessary to configure the core network, especially for the DS related tests.

For the GCS tests, inter-domain interoperability needs to be tested. For this, domain boundaries need to be set: could be at the inter-NRN level, regional level etc. The actual services that will be requested by the NRNs or the end-users need also be considered here.

For the activity testbed, what currently exists is the PlaGE testbed which interconnects several cities in France (and will possibly include some node(s) in Germany) on and across France Telecom's vTHD high speed MPLS testbed, with equipment from different vendors, link speeds of 2.5Gbit/s and clients that use GigE technology. Mauro added that it is  necessary to produce an exact definition of the GCS service and also incorporate security considerations in the test plan.

Given current technology, to implement GCS, one queue per GCS flow might be necessary. This also brings back the relation to Premium IP and Diffserv technology, which has the specific goal of relaxing such requirements on number of queues, for the sake of scalability. Roberto noted that according to the Geant contract, a proposal and implementation plan for the GCS is due in 6 months time.

Mauro proposed the following plans to be considered by the MPLS activity: first, mapping the ATM CBR service on the IP network, defining what guarantees we want to test and then provide. Then, define the number of services that we want to provide in Geant and define the needs of the end users, based on community feedback. Also, study the interaction between Premium IP and GCS, take a closer look on the effects of aggregation and  also look at alternatives to MPLS for GCS, such as SDH-level services.
 

15. IPv6

Besides the list of activities, Tim recalled a few general open issues needing to be addressed: the test-bed network provision issues; the status of the ATM PVCs after November 2001 (David said the only possibility at the moment is through tunnels); the management of core routers supplied by Telebit and how to replace them. Other issues were related to managing the Geant Test Programme IPv6 (GTPv6) network, including router configuration, troubleshooting, handling of new sites joining the network, understanding usage, supporting transition, etc. A new web site at http://www.ipv6.ac.uk/gtpv6 will be provided for coordinating those activities, and also to disseminate information.

Tim asked the group to appoint people responsible for each topic in his plan. Each individual will need to write a section (about 3 pages long) for the Geant deliverable. The primary areas and the identified responsibilities were:

1) platform reporting and interoperability - JOIN,
2) IPv6 addressing policies and issues - Wilfried,
3) Registry work - Wilfried,
4) DNS trials - David Harmelin,
5) transition tools - Stig Venaas,
6) Applications - Tim.

The secondary areas and relevant responsibilities were:

7) network monitoring - Simon, Victor also interested in collaborating,
8) Wireless access - UCL, University of Twente - Victor was interested, Hans suggested to set up clusters with IST people,
9) multicast IPv6 - Tim,
10) Multihoming - Bernard (to be further discussed offline),

During the discussion about replacing the Telebit routers Bernard raised the need for investigating into other routers besides Telebit and Cisco that may be available so far. Bernard suggested to use dedicated IPv6 capable routers at some POPs. Victor added that a separate native IPv6 test backbone - even just a couple of routers would be enough - might be set-up. Overall, it was agreed that the group should investigate  on routers that can be dedicated to being primarily for IPv6 use, whether  the links would be native or tunneled. Howard suggested to investigate the  feasibility and possibly to do that in the context of a migration activity.  DANTE might be interested in providing the necessary resources.

ACTION 1.15 Tim to fix the priority areas and responsibility.

ACTION 1.16 Tim and Bernard to work out a draft plan for set-up of the IPv6  testbed before the next TF-NGN meeting; RedIRIS will participate by  installing an IPv6 router with ATM card.

ACTION 1.17 Bernard to send to mailing list a format being used to distribute IPv6 addresses to customers.

Summary of IPv6 responsibilities.
Leader: Tim Chown, University of Southampton
Other participants: JOIN, DANTE, Uninett, SWITCH agreed to take responsibility for specific tasks; further investigation would be requested about ACOnet, UCL or Uni-Twente and RENATER.
 

16. Co-ordinated equipment loan discussion

ACTION 1.18 Tiziana. Mauro, Roberto, Herve to finalise  discussion about loan of equipment.
 

17. Date of next meeting

18. Any other business

19. List of work items

Delay-Jitter sensitive based Services
Leader: Tiziana Ferrari, INFN-CNAF
Other participants: INFN-GARR, ENST Bretagne, GRnet

Over provisioned network Performance
Leader: Tryfon Chiotis, GRnet
Other participants: INFN-CNAF, INFN-GARR, HEAnet/SURFnet, Uni-Utrecht

QoS Measurement
Leader: Victor Reijs, HEAnet/SURFnet
Other participants: INFN-CNAF, INFN-GARR, ENST Bretagne, RedIRIS

Premium IP Service
Leader: Mauro Campanella, INFN-GARR
Other participants: ENST Bretagne, INT, DFN, GRnet, RUS Uni-Stuttgart

Optical Networking
Leader: Victor Reijs, HEAnet/SURFnet
Other participants: GRnet and SWITCH for the information gathering sub-item, INFN-CNAF for the definition of the practical experience sub items.

Multicast Services
Leaders: Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET & Robert Stoy, DFN
Other participants:

• for the info-source set up for end users: GRnet
• for installing mcastmon monitoring tool: SWITCH, CERN (depending on specific equipment requirements), RedIRIS, DANTE, Uninett, Grnet
• for backbone SSM testing: DANTE, Uninett

Flow-based Monitoring and Analysis
Leader: Simon Leinen, SWITCH
Other participants:

• in performance/scalability testing: DANTE
• in analysis of TEN-155 data: DANTE, RedIRIS
• in backbone Network Management tools: Uninett

QoS & Multicast
Leader: Robert Stoy, DFN
Other participants: INFN-CNAF, CESNET

IPv6
Leader: Tim Chown, University of Southampton
Other participants: JOIN, DANTE, Uninett, SWITCH agreed to take responsibility for specific tasks; further investigation would be requested about ACOnet, UCL or Uni-Twente and RENATER.

Guranteed Capacity Service
Leader: Herve` Prigeant

IP VPN Service (Inter NRN, Inter continental service)
Leader: Dimitrios Kalogeras, GRnet
Still needing further definition

Policy based networking
Leaders: Cees de Laat & Wim Sjow, University of Utrecht
Definition of tasks postponed to April 2001.
 
 

20. Open actions

1.9 Roberto to change prefix of mailing lists at DANTE from qtp- to ngn-

1.10 Victor to incorporate active network measurement in the QoS measurement plan.

1.11 Victor to find partners and make plans for the practical experience with optical networking.

ACTIONS 1.12 Victor to investigate the Chariot monitoring tool support for multicast, and see if it can be provided for free to the TF-NGN group.

1.13 Robert, Tiziana and Lada to refine the workplan for QoS & Multicast, which has relations with both premium IP and multicast services but was decided to be kept separate from them.

1.14 Dimitrios to work out a more specific proposal about IP VPN service and see what can be related to the premium IP service.

1.15 Tim to fix the priority areas and responsibility.

1.16 Tim and Bernard to work out a draft plan for set-up of the IPv6 testbed  before the next TF-NGN meeting; RedIRIS will participate by installing an  IPv6 router with ATM card.

1.17 bernard to send to mailing list a format being used to distribute IPv6 addresses to customers.

1.18 Tiziana. Mauro, Roberto, Herve to initiate and finalise discussion  about loan of equipment.

| Home | Information | Conferences | Innovation | Technical | Library | News |