





~







July 1993


INTERNET MONTHLY REPORTS
------------------------

The purpose of these reports is to communicate to the Internet Research
Group the accomplishments, milestones reached, or problems discovered by
the participating organizations.

     This report is for Internet information purposes only, and is not
     to be quoted in other publications without permission from the
     submitter.

Each organization is expected to submit a 1/2 page report on the first
business day of the month describing the previous month's activities.

These reports should be submitted via network mail to:

     Ann Westine Cooper (Cooper@ISI.EDU)

     NSF Regional reports - To obtain the procedure describing how to
     submit information for the Internet Monthly Report, send an email
     message to mailserv@is.internic.net and put "send imr-procedure" in
     the body of the message (add only that one line; do not put a
     signature).

Requests to be added or deleted from the Internet Monthly report list
should be sent to "imr-request@isi.edu".

     Details on obtaining the current IMR, or back issues, via FTP or
     EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to "rfc-
     info@ISI.EDU" with the message body "help: ways_to_get_imrs".  For
     example:

             To: rfc-info@ISI.EDU
             Subject: getting imrs

             help: ways_to_get_imrs




Cooper                                                          [Page 1]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


TABLE OF CONTENTS

  INTERNET ARCHITECTURE BOARD

     IAB MESSAGE  . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page  3
     INTERNET RESEARCH REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page  4
        PRIVACY AND SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page  4
     INTERNET ENGINEERING REPORTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page  4

  Internet Projects

     ANSNET/NSFNET BACKBONE ENGINEERING  . . . . . . . . . . . page 10
     BARRNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 13
     BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN, INC.,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 14
     CSUNET (CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NETWORK). . . . . . . page 15
     INTERNIC INFORMATION SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 16
     ISI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 19
     JVNCNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 29
     MERIT/MICHNET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 31
     MERIT/NSFNET ENGINEERING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 32
     MERIT/NSFNET INFORMATION SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . page 39
     NEARNET (NEW ENGLAND ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH NETWORK) . . . page 41
     NORTHWESTNET  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 41
     PREPnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 43
     UCL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 43

  CALENDAR OF EVENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 47
























Cooper                                                          [Page 2]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993



INTERNET ARCHITECTURE MESSAGE

     IAB MEETING

     The IAB held an open meeting at the Amsterdam IETF, on Tuesday
     evening July 13, 1993.  About 110 observers attended, approximately
     20% of the IETF meeting. The following is a brief summary of the
     meeting. A more complete summary is available by anonymous FTP from
     host ftp.isi.edu with pathname pub/IAB/IABmins.jul93.txt.

     1. Standards Procedures Document

        Another round of revisions will be made in the replacement for
        RFC-1310, and a new Internet-Draft will be circulated.  However,
        the IAB feels this document should be moved into an RFC as soon
        as possible.  A key issue is the rules for intellectual
        property, particularly copyrights.  The IAB will take steps to
        inform and involve the Internet community, as soon as ISOC
        lawyers have prepared new text.

     2. Proposed ISOC Liaison Agreements with ISO and ITU

        The IAB accepted a recommendation from Vint Cerf, President of
        the Internet Society, that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
        between ISO and ISOC be drafted.  This MOU, if accepted by both
        sides, would form the basis for a Category A liaison
        relationship with ISO.  It would be framed to protect the
        successful IETF processes for standards making, while
        establishing the ground rules for interaction between IETF
        working groups and ISO subcommittees, and any other relations
        deemed helpful.  Cerf agreed to draft such a document, for
        presentation to the Internet community for comments and
        discussions.

        Liaison with the ITU, delayed by their reorganization, is now
        under active consideration.

     3. Projections of CIDR Effects

        There was an extensive discussion of the existing projections of
        the effects of CIDR on preserving the IP address space and
        preventing a routing explosion.  The uncertainties are still
        very large, and further studies, with their assumptions
        carefully documented, are needed.






Cooper                                                          [Page 3]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     4. Architecture

        The IAB has initiated a study of modificiations of the Internet
        architecture for shared media, like public data networks.

        Steve Kent summarized the ongoing work in the IETF and IRTF
        towards a security architecture for the Internet.

     Bob Braden, for the IAB (Braden@ISI.EDU)

INTERNET RESEARCH REPORTS
-------------------------

     PRIVACY AND SECURITY
     --------------------

        The PSRG met at Cambridge University on July 7-9, preceeding the
        IETF meeting in Amsterdam.  Most of the meeting was devoted to
        review and discussion of the Internet security architecture
        document.  This document is now over 100 pages in length and is
        expected to double in size by the end of this year.  It is
        undergoing substantial review and revision by PSRG members and
        members of the IETF community are being solicited to contribute
        to the document.  A draft version of this document will be
        published as one or more Internet Drafts before the end of the
        year.

        The general and program chairs for the ISOC-PSRG Security
        Symposium reported that planning is proceeding apace and that
        review of submissions will occur in September.

        The next meeting of the PSRG will be held at MIT, October 5-7.

        Steve Kent <kent@BBN.COM>

INTERNET ENGINEERING REPORTS
----------------------------

     IETF MONTHLY REPORT

     1. The 27th IETF meeting was held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
        from July 12-16. 1993. The meeting, co-hosted by SURFnet and
        RARE, was the first time an IETF meeting has been held outside
        of North America. The meeting was wekk attended with almost 500
        attendees during the week, a little over the original estimates
        of 450 attendees made one year ago during the Cambridge meeting.





Cooper                                                          [Page 4]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        The ratio of non-US attendees was, as expected, significantly
        higher than at the past few meetings which have ranged from
        between 8 and 11%. For this meeting, 46% of the attendees were
        from outside the United States. The top five countries were, in
        terms of the number of individuals attending:

              The Netherlands         55 attendees
              United Kingdon          30 attendees
              Germany                 25 attendees
              Sweden                  15 attendees
              France                  14 attendees

     2. The next meeting of the IETF will be held in Houston, Texas from
        November 1-5, 1993. This meeting is being co-hosted by SESQUINET
        and Rice University. Note that information on future IETF
        meetings can be always be found in the file 0mtg-sites.txt which
        is located on the IETF shadow directories.

     3. The IESG issued three Last Calls to the IETF during the month
        of July, 1993:

        o  Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)
           <draft-ietf-pppext-cipx-04> (Proposed Standard)

        o  FDDI Management Information Base
           <draft-ietf-fddimib-objects-02> (Proposed Standard)

        o  Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments
           <draft-ietf-tuba-clnp-04> (Proposed Standard)

     4. One Working Group was concluded during this period:

           Chassis MIB (chassis)

     5. 62 Internet Draft actions were taken during the month of July,
        1993:

           (Revised draft (o), New Draft (+) )

      (cat)      o  Generic Security Service API : C-bindings
                    <draft-ietf-cat-secservice-03.txt>
      (mospf)    o  Multicast Extensions to OSPF
                    <draft-ietf-mospf-multicast-04.txt, .ps>
      (mhsds)    o  Representing Tables and Subtrees in the Directory
                    <draft-ietf-mhsds-subtrees-03.txt, .ps>
      (mhsds)    o  Representing the O/R Address hierarchy in the
                    Directory Information Tree
                    <draft-ietf-mhsds-infotree-03.txt, .ps>



Cooper                                                          [Page 5]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


      (mhsds)    o  Use of the Directory to support routing for RFC 822
                    and related protocols
                    <draft-ietf-mhsds-822dir-03.txt, .ps>
      (mhsds)    o  Use of the Directory to support mapping between
                    X.400 and RFC 822 Addresses
                    <draft-ietf-mhsds-supmapping-03.txt, .ps>
      (mhsds)    o  A simple profile for MHS use of Directory
                    <draft-ietf-mhsds-mhsprofile-03.txt, .ps>
      (mhsds)    o  MHS use of Directory to support MHS Routing
                    <draft-ietf-mhsds-routdirectory-03.txt>
      (pppext)   o  The PPP Internetwork Packet Exchange Control
                    Protocol (IPXCP) <draft-ietf-pppext-ipxcp-04.txt>
      (bgp)      o  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border
                    Gateway Protocol (Version 4)
                    <draft-ietf-bgp-mibv4-02.txt>
      (tuba)     o  Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments
                    <draft-ietf-tuba-clnp-04.txt>
      (nasreq)   o  Network Access Server Proposed Requirements Document
                    <draft-ietf-nasreq-nasrequirements-01.txt>
      (hostmib)  o  Host Resources MIB
                    <draft-ietf-hostmib-resources-02.txt>
      (mhsds)    o  MHS use of Directory to support MHS Content
                    Conversion <draft-ietf-mhsds-convert-01.txt, .ps>
      (ospf)     o  OSPF Version 2 <draft-ietf-ospf-version2-03.txt,
                    .ps>
      (x400ops)  o  Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations
                    <draft-ietf-x400ops-postmaster-02.txt>
      (pppext)   o  Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)
                    <draft-ietf-pppext-cipx-04.txt>
      (avt)      o  RTP: A Real-Time Transport Protocol
                    <draft-ietf-avt-rtp-02.txt>
      (avt)      o  Media Encodings <draft-ietf-avt-encodings-01.txt>
      (avt)      o  Sample Profile for the Use of RTP for Audio and
                    Video Conferences with Minimal Control
                    <draft-ietf-avt-profile-01.txt>
      (pppext)   o  PPP LCP Extensions <draft-ietf-pppext-lcpext-02.txt>
      (pip)      o  Use of DNS with Pip <draft-ietf-pip-dns-01.txt>
      (none)     o  Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address
                    Assignment and Aggregation Strategy
                    <draft-fuller-cidr-strategy-03.txt>
      (iplpdn)   o  Parameter Negotiation for the Multiprotocol
                    Interconnect
                    <draft-ietf-iplpdn-para-negotiation-01.txt>
      (iplpdn)   o  Determination of Encapsulation of Multi-protocol
                    Datagrams in Circuit-switched Environments
                    <draft-ietf-iplpdn-multi-isdn-01.txt>
      (pppext)   o  PPP over ISDN <draft-ietf-pppext-isdn-01.txt>




Cooper                                                          [Page 6]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


      (pppext)   o  PPP in Frame Relay
                    <draft-ietf-pppext-frame-relay-01.txt>
      (pppext)   o  PPP in X.25 <draft-ietf-pppext-x25-01.txt>
      (cat)      o  FTP Security Extensions
                    <draft-ietf-cat-ftpsec-02.txt>
      (none)     o  Exchanging Routing Information Across Provider
                    Boundaries in the CIDR Environment
                    <draft-rekhter-cidr-environment-01.txt>
      (mospf)    o  MOSPF: Analysis and Experience
                    <draft-ietf-mospf-analysis-02.txt>
      (none)     o  Connection Multiplexing Protocol (CMP)
                    <draft-cameron-cmp-01.txt>
      (uri)      o  Uniform Resource Locators
                    <draft-ietf-uri-url-01.txt, .ps>
      (tuba)     o  Assignment of System Identifiers for TUBA/CLNP Hosts
                    <draft-ietf-tuba-sysids-02.txt>
      (none)     o  FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)
                    <draft-piscitello-ftp-bigports-02.txt>
      (none)     o  Korean Character Encoding for Internet Messages
                    <draft-chon-korean-encoding-01.txt>
      (frnetmib) o  Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay
                    Service <draft-ietf-frnetmib-fr-02.txt>
      (isn)      o  FYI on Questions and Answers: Answers to Commonly
                    Asked "Elementary and Secondary School Internet
                    User" Questions <draft-ietf-isn-faq-01.txt>
      (dns)      o  DNS Resolver MIB Extensions
                    <draft-ietf-dns-resolver-mib-01.txt>
      (dns)      o  DNS Server MIB Extensions
                    <draft-ietf-dns-server-mib-01.txt>
      (atm)      o  Default IP MTU for use over ATM AAL5 Services
                    <draft-ietf-atm-mtu-01.txt>
      (atm)      o  Classical IP and ARP over ATM
                    <draft-ietf-atm-classic-ip-01.txt>
      (frnetmib) o  Service Management Architecture for Virtual
                    Connection Services
                    <draft-ietf-frnetmib-virtual-sma-01.txt>
      (iiir)     o  Hypertext Markup Language (HTML): A Representation
                    of Textual Information and MetaInformation for
                    Retrieval and Interchange
                    <draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt, .ps>
      (madman)   o  DSA Monitoring MIB
                    <draft-ietf-madman-dsa-mib-01.txt>
      (pppext)   +  PPP HDLC Framing <draft-ietf-pppext-framing-00.txt>
      (wnils)    +  Whois and Network Information Lookup Service Whois++
                    <draft-ietf-wnils-whois-lookup-00.txt>
      (pppext)   +  The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
                    <draft-ietf-pppext-lcp-main-00.txt>




Cooper                                                          [Page 7]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


      (dns)      +  Common DNS Errors and Suggested Fixes
                    <draft-ietf-dns-common-errors-00.txt>
      (x400ops)  o  Mail based file distribution Part 1: Dialog between
                    two nodes <draft-ietf-x400ops-tbl-dist-part1-01.txt>
      (appleip)  +  KIP AppleTalk/IP Gateway Functionality
                    <draft-ietf-appleip-kip-gateway-00.txt, .ps>
      (x400ops)  o  Mail based file distribution Part 2: Over-all
                    structure <draft-ietf-x400ops-tbl-dist-part2-01.txt>
      (pip)      +  IP Independent Transition (IPIT) for Pip
                    <draft-ietf-pip-ipit-transition-00.txt>
      (isis)     +  Routing over Nonbroadcast Multiaccess Links
                    <draft-ietf-isis-nbma-00.txt>
      (none)     +  TELNET MPX option
                    <draft-caradec-telnet-mpx-option-00.txt>
      (none)     +  Definitions of Managed Objects for the Node in Fibre
                    Channel Standard
                    <draft-chu-fibre-channel-mib-00.txt>
      (iplpdn)   +  A Simple Multilink Protocol for Synchronizing the
                    Transmission of Multi-protocol Datagrams.
                    <draft-ietf-iplpdn-simple-multi-00.txt>
      (pppext)   +  Point-to-Point Protocol Extensions for Bridging
                    <draft-ietf-pppext-for-bridging-00.txt>
      (none)     +  The Virtual Network Protocol for Host Mobility
                    <draft-teraoka-mobileip-vip-00.txt>
      (none)     +  Internet Authentication Requirements
                    <draft-haller-auth-requirements-00.txt>
      (tn3270e)  +  TN3270 Enhancements
                    <draft-ietf-tn3270e-enhancements-00.txt>
      (tn3270e)  +  TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Printer Selection
                    <draft-ietf-tn3270e-luname-print-00.txt>

     6. 17 RFC's were published during the month of July, 1993.

        RFC     St   WG        Title
        ------- --  --------   -------------------------------------
        RFC1440 E   (none)     SIFT/UFT: Sender-Initiated/Unsolicited
                               File Transfer
        RFC1477 I   (idpr)     IDPR as a Proposed Standard
        RFC1478 PS  (idpr)     An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy
                               Routing
        RFC1479 PS  (idpr)     Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol
                               Specification: Version 1
        RFC1481 I   (iab)      IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate
                               Strategy to Address the Issue of Scaling
        RFC1482 I   (bgpdepl)  Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy
                               Routing Database
        RFC1483 PS  (atm)      Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM
                               Adaptation Layer 5



Cooper                                                          [Page 8]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        RFC1484 E   (osids)    Using the OSI Directory to achieve User
                               Friendly Naming(OSI-DS 24(v1.2))
        RFC1485 PS  (osids)    A String Representation of Distinguished
                               Names(OSI-DS 23(v5))
        RFC1486 E   (none)     An Experiment in Remote Printing
        RFC1487 PS  (osids)    X.500 Lightweight Directory Access
                               Protocol
        RFC1488 PS  (osids)    The X.500 String Representation of
                               Standard Attribute Syntaxes
        RFC1489 I   (none)     Registration of a Cyrillic Character Set
        RFC1490 DS  (iplpdn)   Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame
                               Relay
        RFC1491 I   (ids)      A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500
        RFC1492 I   (none)     An Access Control Protocol, Sometimes
                               Called TACACS
        RFC1493 DS  (bridge)   Definitions of Managed Objects for
                               Bridges

     St(atus): ( S) Internet Standard
               (PS) Proposed Standard
               (DS) Draft Standard
               ( E) Experimental
               ( I) Informational

     Steve Coya (scoya@nri.reston.va.us)


























Cooper                                                          [Page 9]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


INTERNET PROJECTS
-----------------

ANSNET/NSFNET BACKBONE ENGINEERING
----------------------------------

     Network Status Summary
     ======================

     ANSnet stability improved in July over the June measurements.  New
     routing software was deployed in the ANSnet to reduce instability,
     and simplify the reconfiguration process.  T3 circuit topology
     changes where implemented to improve route diversity.

     July Backbone Traffic and Routing Statistics
     ============================================

     The total inbound packet count for the network (measured using SNMP
     interface counters) was 32,888,889,408 on T3 ENSS interfaces, up
     4.6% from June.  The total packet count into the network including
     all ENSS serial interfaces was 37,587,985,321 up 5.8% from June.

     As of July 31, the number of networks configured in the Merit
     Policy Routing Database was 14122 for the T3 backbone.  Of these,
     3228 were never announced to the T3 backbone (e.g. silent nets).
     The maximum number of networks announced to the T3 backbone during
     the month (from samples collected every 15 minutes) was 10,058.

     Rcp_routed Routing Software Changes
     ===================================

     During July the "Dynamic Reconfig" version of the rcp_routed
     routing daemon was deployed.  The primary purpose of this version
     was to eliminate the disturbance caused by restarting the routing
     daemon as a means of reconfiguration.  Problems arose with this
     feature, and for the moment routing daemon restarts are still being
     used to accomplish reconfiguration.  There was also a problem with
     an EGP option used only at ENSS145.  To correct this, the "Less
     Broken" version of the routing daemon was deployed on ENSS145.  In
     August, the problems with the reconfiguration are expected to be
     corrected allowing non-disruptive reconfigurations.  Release notes
     provide further details.  They can be found in:

         ftp.ans.net:/pub/info/t3-rcp_routed/Release-Notes







Cooper                                                         [Page 10]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     Routing Stability Measured on the T3 Network
     ============================================

     Internal routing stability measurements are made by monitoring
     short term disconnect times (disconnects of five minutes duration
     or less).  This is intended as a measure of stability rather than
     complete connectivity.  Stability during July was 97.3% including
     disruptions during the configuration windows.  Excluding the
     configuration windows, stability was 97.7%.

            MONTH                 overall   excluding configs
            ------                -------   -----------------
            January                 99.1%           99.5%
            February                99.0%           99.5%
            March                   97.5%           99.1%
            April                   96.1%           97.2%
            May                     97.4%           98.0%
            Jun                     95.5%           96.6%
            July                    97.3%           97.7%

     July stability was improved over June.  Most of the network was
     quite stable.  ENSS230 suffered chronic troubles throughout the
     month.  There was one troublesome CNSS-CNSS circuit that
     contributed to the instability.  This was the CNSS80 (St. Louis) to
     CNSS96 (Denver) circuit.  The flooding in the Midwest contributed
     to problems with this circuit.

     A patch panel problem at CNSS57 (College Park) on July 13 caused a
     lengthy outage to the T3 circuit at ENSS136.  There was about 3.75
     hours of instability at ENSS136 due to congestion on the T1 backup
     link.  This single event made ENSS136 the most unstable node in
     July.  ENSS145 has exhibited CPU starvation problems.  Reducing the
     routing daemon logging on this machine has helped.  The problem is
     related to building 24 KB EGP packets (and searching the
     announcement restrictions to do so) for multiple EGP peers that
     accept full routing.  ENSS145 saw 3.5 hours of instability.
     ENSS136 and ENSS144 have seen similar problems but far less often
     (ENSS144 saw about 2 hours of instability).  The Denver nodes also
     exhibited instability due to the St. Louis to Denver circuit.
     These are ENSS213, ENSS141 and ENSS142, each with over 3 hours of
     instability.

     The remaining ANSnet nodes saw under 3 hours of cumulative
     instability.  The number of nodes experiencing a great deal of
     outage improved over June.  The breakdown by sites is as follows:






Cooper                                                         [Page 11]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        MONTH     >5 hr   >2 hr   > 1hr  >30 min   >15 min  <= 15min

        ------------------------------------------------------------
        January      0       0       1       8        19        55
        February     0       0       1      24        19        41
        March        0       4      18      23        23        22
        April        2       2       3      13        12        57
        May          0       4      33      32        15         5
        June         3      21      35      18        12         3
        Jul          0      12      28      44         6         1

     The majority of ANSnet nodes saw between 30 minutes to 2 hours of
     instability.  That is between 99.9 and 99.7 percent stability.  Two
     problems which can be corrected are improvements in routing around
     problem links and elimination of the config run disruptions.  The
     former will reduce the instability due to problems such as the St.
     Louis to Denver link and the latter will move the majority of nodes
     to the under 30 minutes of instability threshold (better than 99.9%
     stability).

     T3 Backbone Topology Change
     ===========================

     During July, we added a new T3 circuit between the Hartford CNSS48
     and the Cleveland CNSS40.  We also removed the T3 circuit between
     the Greensboro CNSS72 and the Hartford CNSS48.

     The San Francisco CNSS8 <-> Seattle CNSS88 T3 backbone link was
     rolled over to a new fiber.

     Notable Outages in July '93
     ============================

     E140 (Lincoln) suffered an extended outage due to hardware problems
     on 7/1

     Several circuits terminating in St. Louis suffered from problems on
     7/13 that were complicated by flooding.

     E230 (DigEx) suffered an extended outage due to scheduled circuit
     testing on 7/7

     E139 (Rice) sufferd an extended circuit outage on 7/11

     E136 (College Park) lost T3 connectivity due to hardware problems
     on 7/13

     Jordan Becker <becker@ans.net>



Cooper                                                         [Page 12]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


BARRNET (BAY AREA REGIONAL RESEARCH NETWORK)
--------------------------------------------

          BARRNET Membership Update
          -------------------------

          Date:                  7/31/93
          Member Organizations:  185
          New Members, Jun/Jul:  Philips Semiconductor
                                 Woodland High School
                                 Informix Software
                                 CR Labs

                                 VHDL International
                                 Kalpana, Inc.
                                 Elan Computer Group
                                 TelLink

          Publications:          The BARRNetter (Quarterly Newsletter)
                                 Heard on the Net (Electronic
                                 Newsletter) BARRTech Notes

          The BARRNetter, Heard on the Net, and BARRTech notes are
          currently available to BARRNet members only. Submissions and
          comments welcome.  Email: jhoag@barrnet.net

          News:  Networkers from over 60 countries will attend a 6-day
          workshop for technologically developing countries to be held
          this August 10-16 on the Stanford campus.  BARRNet and the
          Internet Society are co-sponsoring the workshop, which will
          be held in conjunction with INET '93. 130 participants will
          attend workshop sessions taught by an international team of
          instructors, covering low-cost and advanced internetworking
          technologies and the use of network services. Following the
          workshop, attendees will also participate in the INET'93
          conference in San Francisco.

          New FTP Archives and Gopher server:  BARRNet's ftp archives
          can now be reached at either of the following hostnames:

                          ftp.barrnet.net
                          nic.barrnet.net

          Gopher clients can access these archives by connecting to:

                          gopher.barrnet.net  (port 70)





Cooper                                                         [Page 13]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


          The BARRNet anonymous FTP archives contain information about
          BARRNet, the Internet in general, and resources to assist
          our members in configuring aspects of their internetworking
          connections.  In the months ahead, the archives will be
          expanded to include a wider range of Internet resource
          materials, popular client/server software, and other files
          of general interest to the Internet community.

             BARRNet                             info@barrnet.net
             Pine Hall, Rm 115                   Phone: 415-725-1790
             Stanford University                 Fax:   415-723-0010
             Stanford, CA  94305-4122

           John Hoag <jhoag@barrnet.net>

BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN INC.
----------------------------

     Scaleability
     ------------

     Work on the network editor for the flow-level simulator is nearing
     completion.  The user interface has been constructed using GUI
     tools from the InterViews distribution. The graphical network
     editor has been heavily leveraged from the Unidraw graphical editor
     toolkit, which is based on a general model of graphically-
     represented objects with additional state and which directly
     supports connections between objects.

     The study on congestion issues for distributed simulation has been
     completed.  For the probable topologies for distributed
     simulations, there is typically only one bottleneck point along any
     given path -- it occurs as the traffic enters a site tail circuit
     (typically T1) from the backbone network (expected to be T3).
     There appear to be three useful strategies in handling congestion
     at this point:

       - the application should prioritize traffic, and the network
         should provide priority queueing
       - the network should provide fairness between flows (based on
         source/destination addresses)
       - when traffic is dropped, the oldest traffic in queue for the
         given flow should be dropped, rather than dropping the newest
         traffic

     (See December '92 Internet Monthly Report for more details about
     this project and the toolset being developed.)




Cooper                                                         [Page 14]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     Real-Time Multicast (Communications)
     ------------------------------------

     During July, we implemented two new multicast services as
     modifications to mrouted -- multi-level flows and multicast access
     control.

     Multi-level flows are intended for use in applications where
     different types or grades of data (such as hierarchically-encoded
     video) are being sent to a multicast address where receivers might
     have differing requirements for the various data streams. The
     sending application labels messages in a multicast flow with a
     subflow identifier (carried in the IP precedence field).  Receivers
     can provide a subflow mask when adding themselves to a group (the
     subflow mask is carried in an unused field in the IGMP Host
     Membership Report message).  Routers only forward packets if they
     belong to a requested subflow.  When IP multicast supports pruning,
     some simple modifications to the routing protocol will be required
     to propagate subflow masks with the routing information.

     IP multicast access control is a mechanism to provide a simple form
     of access control to the IP multicast system.  An access list of
     permitted receivers is provided to mrouted.  When an IGMP Host
     Membership Report is received by mrouted, the source is checked
     against the list for the group (if any is provided), and the
     message is ignored if the host is not present.  Backwards
     compatibility is maintained by having groups without access lists
     allow any receiver to join.  The access list is distributed using
     "flow-tracking" RCOs (described in the May Internet Monthly), which
     are associated with the multicast destination address.

     A draft of a document describing Resource Coordination Objects
     (RCOs) was completed, with a final draft planned for distribution
     next month.

     We have started work on an RCO-based resource-scheduling utility,
     intended to help organize access to shared network resources such
     as the DARTnet and the MBONE.

     Karen Seo <kseo@BBN.COM>

CSUNET (THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NETWORK)
-----------------------------------------------

     * In order to reduce costs to end-users, CSUnet has dropped its
     subscription to CERFNET as of July 31.  CSUnet will retain its T-1
     connections to the NSFNET ENSS at San Diego and to BARRNET at San
     Francisco and San Diego.



Cooper                                                         [Page 15]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     * CSUnet is investigating how to ramp-up to DS3/ATM to provide for
     interactive two-way video-conferencing and increased Internet
     demands.

     * A Request for Information (RFI) to telecommunications facility
     vendors was disseminated to several major IECs and RBOCs which will
     disclose (via non-disclosure agreements with CSUnet) their
     proprietary ATM and Broadband, Low and Medium Bandwidth, and remote
     access offerings and plans that are soon to be available.  The
     responses are due mid-August.

     Newly Connected CSUnet TCP/IP Members:
     -------------------------------------

     CSU Monterey Bay, Planning Office (Seaside, CA)
     El Camino College (converted from X.25 to Internet)
     Grossmont Unified High School District (San Diego, CA)
     Kern Community College District (Kern, CA)
     Ventura County Superintendent Of Schools (Ventura, CA)

     New Pending TCP/IP Members (signed contract pending):
     -----------------------------------------------------

     Butte College (Orville, CA)
     College of the Sequioas (Visalia, CA)
       This is also a PBX and video connection.

     Mike Marcinkevicz <mdm@csu.net>

INTERNIC INFORMATION SERVICES
-----------------------------

     This month the InterNIC begins regular entries to the Internet
     Monthly Report. The InterNIC is a cooperative project of three
     organizations, General Atomics/CERFnet, AT&T, and Network
     Solutions, Inc. (NSI), designed to provide network information
     services to the networking community.  General Atomics/CERFnet
     provides Information Services; AT&T provides Directory and Database
     Services; and NSI provides Registration Services.

     InterNIC Information Services
     -----------------------------

     InterNIC Information Services, provided by General Atomics/CERFnet,
     provides a range of services to the networking community. These
     include a Reference Desk with a toll-free phone number
     (800.444.4345) and mailbox (info@internic.net). InterNIC
     Information Services provides procedures for getting connected to



Cooper                                                         [Page 16]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     the Internet, pointers to resources and tools available over the
     network, and training seminars for new and intermediate users.

     The goal of InterNIC Information Services is to act as a focal
     point of information for network information centers (NICs) and end
     users.  Information about the Internet and how to use it is
     collected and re-distributed via hardcopy and FAX, and through the
     InfoSource via Gopher, WAIS, telnet, FTP, and e-mail. Below are
     statistics from July representing the number and type of inquiries
     handled by InterNIC's Reference Desk:

                 REFERENCE DESK CONTACTS - July, 1993
                 ====================================

             Method          Contacts        Daily Average
             ======          ========        =============
             Email                288                   14
             Phone                944                   47
             FAX                   68                    3
             U.S. Mail             15                    1
             =============================================
             TOTAL              1,315                   66

     During July, Information Services also planned the first NIC Fest,
     to be held in conjunction with SIGUCCS in San Diego on November 6.
     The InterNIC seminar schedule has also been established. Details on
     both seminar and NIC Fest can be found on the InfoSource or by
     sending mail to info@internic.net.  Visit the InterNIC booth at
     InterOP and leave your card for a chance to win a free gift.

     Directory and Database Services
     -------------------------------

     InterNIC Directory and Database Services, provided by AT&T, offers
     a number of services designed to help users find resources in the
     Internet.

     The "Directory of Directories" contains individual listings of many
     types of resources.  "Directory" Services provides access to tools
     that help locate individuals or specific files (WHOIS, X.500,
     Netfind, Archie, Gopher).  "Database" Services makes general
     Internet information (RFCs, Internet Drafts, etc.) available to the
     community and can also support databases for special groups or
     other organizations.

     The Directory of Directories was originally seeded with the
     contents of the Internet Resource Guide (compiled by BBN's NNSC),
     and is continually expanded to include new entries.  If you have a



Cooper                                                         [Page 17]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     resource you would like to list, or would like detailed information
     on any of our services, please send email to admin@ds.internic.net.

     July activities in Directory and Database Services included
     creation and maintenance of a "Current IETF Documents Archive" to
     make available the most current versions of documents during the
     Amsterdam IETF and recording the MBONE broadcasts of Amsterdam IETF
     sessions so they could be downloaded and played back for those who
     could not attend or listen "live". Directory and Database Services
     also initiated registration of our X.500 DSA at the root level of
     the DIT to provide increased reliability, and creation of a WHOIS
     server that searches WHOIS data available at MILNET, InterNIC
     Registration Services, and InterNIC Directory and Database
     Services, returning the combined results.

     InterNIC Registration Services
     ------------------------------

     The InterNIC registration services group continues to work with
     Internet service providers and regional registries on CIDR address
     allocation.  There were 71,204 Class C number delegated or
     allocated during this month of operation. This large number
     includes the delegation of 194.x.x.x to RIPE NCC. We will continue
     the delegation to providers as necessary.  Individual class C
     requests are being referred to the anticipated service provider
     when a service provider can be identified.

     The following statistic show the activity at the InterNIC
     Registration facility during the month of July.

     Hostmaster Email         2772
     Postal/Fax Applications  250
     Telephone Calls          903
     Domain Registered        554
     Inverse Addresses        356
     Class C's Assigned       71,204
     Class B's Assigned       193
     ASN Assigned             26
                        Connections          Retrievals
     Gopher Sessions       24,254               9,662
     Wais Sessions         12,224              21,725
     Ftp Sessions           4,404              17,873
     Telnet Sessions       27,084
     Mail Server              778

     Susan Calcari (susanc@is.internic.net)
     Subu Subramanian (subu@qsun.att.com)
     John Zalubski (johnz@internic.net)



Cooper                                                         [Page 18]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     ISI
     ---

     GIGABIT NETWORKING

                           Joyce Reynold's Trip Report
                       Joint European Networking Conference
                     Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH)
                                Trondheim, Norway
                               May 10th-13th, 1993

     RARE ISUS Working Group

        The RARE Information Services and User Support (ISUS) Working
        Group, chaired by Jill Foster, met in tandem with the JENC
        Conference.  The first meeting was held of the morning of May
        10th.

        The agenda on this day included:

           1) Review of the Pisa minutes
              Report on the results of the electronic mail meeting
              Other matters

           2) Administrative

           3) Report of COSINE projects (Concise, P3)

           4) Brief Liaison Reports (IETF User Services Area,
              CNI, TopNode, CNIDR, and EARNInfo)

           5) Update/Review of the Task Forces within ISUS (e.g.,
              Support of Special Interest Groups, ISO SR projects,
              document delivery, CWIS, etc.)

        Other business on this agenda included documentation (from
        10:00- 11:00am), publicity awareness (11:00-12:00noon), an ISUS
        plenary (12:00-12:30pm), and any other business.

        Introductions were made around the room from the attendees.
        Discussion then focussed around the RARE Document server and the
        mailing list.  They are now available via Gopher.  Comments were
        made from the attendees that there not only needs to be a number
        on each of the documents on this server, but also there is a
        need to put in some kind of abstract.  Erik Huizer suggested
        that this group ought to tailor the "style" based on CNRI's
        Internet-Drafts type tagging.  This is a preliminary suggestion.
        Tim Dixon, Erik, Jill, and others will discuss this further.



Cooper                                                         [Page 19]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     Brief Report on COSINE projects

        This included CONCISE (a European Information Service) and P3
        (Supports International User Groups).  COSINE is looking for
        funding for the continuation of its projects.  P3 is currently
        being funded.  Each group is trying to be self sufficient.

        A talk was presented on CONCISE.  The past history was CONCISE
        was to build an OSI information services. This project was
        completed, and the deliverables were satisfied. The services
        were extended to February 1993, as the usage was increasing. In
        regards to CONCISE in the present:

           information items available              circa 800
           countries accessing                      greater than 35
           accesses in quarter 1 (1993)             6,296
           SIGs (special interest groups)           12
           server reliability over 12 months        99%

        The CONCISE future includes:

           services contract anticipated to continue
           support and maintenance agreed for 1993
           A fourth CONCISE site is to be in Belgium
           Enhancements are planned (e.g., Telnet, access to other
           servers, etc.)

        CONCISE questions:

           - Positioning - where should it fit within the relationships
             of information services in Europe and globally.

           - Publicity - usage increases dramatically when information
             is disseminated

           - information - what is put out?

           - Enhancements

     Liaison Reports

        Geza Turchanyi presented a report on RIPE's NIDUS (Network
        Information Discovery for Users Support) Working Group.
        This group is currently concentrating on user surveys and
         documentation.

        Bert Stals presented an EARNinfo report, including EARN's
        "Guide to Network Resource Tools" publication.



Cooper                                                         [Page 20]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        Joyce Reynolds presented a report on the current activities
        and new FYI RFC publications of the User Services Area of
        the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

     Document Delivery

        Bert Stals lead this session.  This session focused on the
        better use of networked services, and offering assistance in
        using networks.  Deliverables currently include:

           introduction leaflets
           user guides
           reference cards
           handout/leaflet publication

        The original intent of this group is to bring together basic
        introductory information for local and national support groups.
        There is a desire to see information up on a central Gopher
        server, so that one can set up a "training Gopher".  In
        regards to publication of documentation, if it is copyrighted,
        will there be a willingness for redistribution?  The answer is
        if there is an acknowledgement from the source, similar to the
        RFC series of notes. The problem with this is that some
        publishers have taken the verbatim documentation, published
        it and then made a profit.  There seemed to be two differing
        opinions that came out of this group's discussions regarding
        user and documentation availability.  Concensus was reached
        that "political" filtering should make all information
        available to all users.

     Network Training Material Task Force Meeting

        The aims of this group include:

           - see what network training material exist
           - provide a comprehensive mix and match package for:
              a) network training staff
              b) end users
           - use the net to deliver training
           - share experiences and successful methods
           - enable the research community to make better use
             of networked services
           - liase with IETF and Australian groups

        Margaret Issacs is working on a catalog of training materials.
        Jill is looking for volunteers to help add to the catalog. She
        has a couple of North American volunteers.  Milan Sterba
        volunteered a student working with him to help out from the



Cooper                                                         [Page 21]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        European perspective.

        A training PAK is being developed by this Task Force.  The
        pack is to include:

           video
           OHP Masters
           Speaker's notes and suggested demos
           Handouts
           Workshop sheets
           Evaluation forms
           Disk based tutorial
           Bibliography of reference documentation

     IETF BOF at JENC

        Erik Huizer presented an IETF BOF which included:

           - What is the IETF?
           - How does it work?
           - What is an RFC?
           - What is a STD (Standard)?
           - What kinds of working groups will be
             meeting in Amsterdam?
           - What will they be working on?

        Joyce Reynolds submitted an IETF User Services Area summary
        for Erik to read to the BOF participants on what working
        groups in her area will meet and what they will work on.

     Global Interconnection session

        Bernhard Stockman led off this session with a slide of Europe
        and networking traffic from 1991.  Since then, there has been
        an increase of traffic and a there is a need for more global
        infrastructure.  The Global Internet Exchange (GIX) is being
        developed.  This is due to the advent of global connectivity.
        The increased complexity has driven the concept of the GIX.
        There is a need for a specification of a neutral framework.
        The GIX proposal was worked out by the IEPG (Internet
        Engineering Planning Group).  The intent is to specify
        connection points so people can come with their router
        and connect.

        In this spring of 1993, a pilot GIX was installed in
        Washington, D.C. Bernhard emphasized that this is currently
        a working version, not a production version.  Its intent:




Cooper                                                         [Page 22]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


           - ubiquitous and homogeneous Internet
           - maximal connectivity and maximal facility
           - simplified method to give connectivity to all
             Internet connected networks
           - stable and reliable policy based routing
           - no restrictions in top level transit backbones
           - free choice of transit backbones
           - restriction as close to the end-users as possible

        The functionality of GIX includes connectivity, transit, and
        routing. It is required to have scalability, manageability,
        accountability, and timeliness. The GIX model includes a
        physical layer 2 structure where providers can be their
        routes and peer with other providers. There is to be a
        routing registry, also.  Discussion are continuing to go
        on with regards to routing implementation, switching of
        traffic, transit, and management.

        There has been one basic model discussed for one GIX:

                |---|                             |---|
                | N |--------------|    |---------| N |
                |---|              |    |         |---|
                                   |    |
                                |---------|
                                |         |
                                |   GIX   |
                                |         |
                                |---------|
                                   |    |
                |---|              |    |         |---|
                | N |--------------|    |---------| N |
                |---|                             |---|

        This provides low connection cost for geographically close local
        networks.

        Multiple GIXs are interconnected via fully connected backbones
        (services providers).  Some networks connect as a backbone,
        others have to negotiate transit.  Multiple GIXs interconnected
        via shared resources need commonly agreed methods (similar
        to EBONE).









Cooper                                                         [Page 23]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        Refinements to GIX:

           1) Physical Layer 2 LANs
              * 24hr/7days a week management coverage
              * excellent environmental support
              * pro-rate the share of costs
           2) Routing Registry
              * neutral routing registry
              * registration of preferred paths
              * method for routing policy
           3) Route Server
              * gated

        The Washington D.C. GIX pilot (this is NOT the GIX, but this
        is the platform where they are piloting a GIX) is called
        MAE-East. They may set up another pilot on the West coast
        (MAE-West) if this pilot proves successful.  Participation
        is from several telecommunications entities (MCI, Sprint,
        etc.). This pilot is supported by the CIX Association, and
        is regarded as excellent as a first GIX pilot. The traffic
        capacity is possible over the MAE-East, but also via direct
        connection between connecting networks.

        The working rules for MAE-East:

           - only network providers can join
           - any network providers can join
           - any network providers may or may not peer with
             any other provider
           - providers pay for their connection

        Daniel Karrenberg was the second presenter of this session
        presenting a talk coordinating IP networks in Europe. There
        were 350,000 hosts registered in the DNS (Domain Name System)
        as of last March 1993. Daniel went on to explain what is RIPE
        and what is the RIPE NCC. RARE is the financial and legal
        umbrella of the RIPE organizations. In general, there are
        providing:

           1) information services and the RIPE document store
           2) WAIS, Gopher, and WWW access
           3) interactive services
           4) general support for the RIPE meetings








Cooper                                                         [Page 24]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        The most specialized services the RIPE NCC provides include:

           1) The Internet Registry (IR)  (specifically,
              IP network numbers)

                   Global Internet Registry (InterNIC)
                         /                 \
                        /                   \
                    |---------|        |----------|
                    |  RIPE   |        |   A-P    |
                    |  NCC    |        |   NIC    |
                    |---------|        |----------|

           The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) delegates to
           the IRs.

           There are currently more than 1,000 network numbers assigned
           by the RIPE NCC each month.  These assignments are
           decentralized to local IRs:

           2) service provider IRs (Europanet, EBONE, etc.)
           3) non-services providers (community services, goodwill)

        The challenges to this effort is in managing the growth.  It
        is an exciting challenge.  Daniel noted that Paul Mockapetris,
        in his talk, mentioned that there could be 100,000 nets by 1996.

        Other challenges include:

           1) routing stability in the registry, with a multiple
              interconnection architecture.  You will have to have
              something like this.

           2) quality of services

           3) to find good people to do the work

           4) getting the funds to continue.  A need to spread
              funding out to more services providers.

     IPng (Next Generation Internet Protocol) session

        Bob Hinden presented a talk on the next generation of IP
        effort, which included discussion on what is the short term,
        medium term, and long term issues, and a summary.

        What is the problem? Overwhelming success! In the beginning,
        no one could imagine running out of IP network numbers. The



Cooper                                                         [Page 25]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        Internet is doubling about every year.  11,000 networks in
        excess  of millions of hosts.  There are problems in two areas.
        In the short term, it is the routing table size and computation.
        In the later term, it is IP address exhaustion. This is a
        "success" problem, not a "broken" problem.

        Bob put up an Internet growth graph slide which showed a big
        curve, which doesn't seem to want to level off.  Recently, the
        growth curve has been going in a straight line, but it still
        doesn't stop.  Bob explained that IP routing is largely flat.
        There is no topological relationship, if you were just looking
        at an IP number.  There is a need to have routing computations
        that are consistently updated, globally. There is no information
        in addresses to aggregate.  One can send a whole range of
        addresses in one route. Routing tables are growing
        exponentially.

        The current IP addresses are broken into three classes (A,B,C,
        etc.). In the local part of an address is the division between
        domain and host. In the short term, we are running out of Class
        B network numbers and assignments of multiple Class C addresses
        will aggravate routing problems. In the long term, we will run
        out of all network numbers.

        What is being done?  The IETF is developing solutions. The short
        term solution is CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing).  In the
        medium term, new IP protocols are in development with large
        address space, with fixed boundaries of IP addresses:

           Class As are too big
           Class Bs are 50% assigned
           Class Cs are too small

        CIDR will relax the boundaries of IP addresses.  It will allow
        multiple Class C addresses to be used efficiently at one site.
        Allocate blocks of IP addresses to providers.  New or additional
        assignments will be made from provider blocks.

        In the medium term of new protocol development, there are three
        primary contenders: TUBA, SIP/IPAE, and PIP.  In Bob's opinion,
        it will be the transition factor, not what protocol will be
        used, that will be most critical.  All these protocol can work,
        with responsible people working on this effort. The community
        needs to decide.  Once one protocol is chosen, the people need
        to get behind it and support it.






Cooper                                                         [Page 26]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        Long Term work:

           NIMROD
              - separation of address and identifiers
              - dynamic creation of level of hierarchy
                independent of hosts
              - routes calculated and installed based on
                traffic patterns and policy requirements
           UNIFIED Source Demand Routing (SDR)
              - use BGP/IDRP protocols for common case
                routers
              - use IDPR for specialized policy routes
              - provide efficient, yet flexible routing

        In summary:

           - there is significant work in all of these areas
           - CIDR is being deployed now
              * blocks of addresses have been assigned to providers
           - new IP protocols are being developed and implemented
              * no clear winner (yet)
              * routing implementations are being
                routed and deployed
              * research is underway on routing paradigms,
                with the focus on stability and flexibility

     Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) teleconference

        There was an IESG teleconference held on 13 May, in which
        Bob Hinden, Erik Huizer and Joyce Reynolds participated at
        the SINTEF facility in Trondheim, during the JENC conference.
        Special thanks to Alf Hansen for his assistance.

     15 RFCS WERE PUBLISHED THIS MONTH.

        RFC 1477:  Steenstrup, M., "IDPR as a Proposed Standard",
                   BBN Systems and Technologies, July 1993.

        RFC 1479:  Steenstrup, M., "Inter-Domain Policy Routing
                   Protocol Specification:  Version 1", BBN Systems
                   and Technologies, July 1993.

        RFC 1481:  Huitema, C., " IAB Recommendation for an
                   Intermediate Strategy to Address the Issue
                   of Scaling", July 1993.

        RFC 1482:  Knopper, M., Steven J. Richardson, "Aggregation
                   Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing



Cooper                                                         [Page 27]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


                   Database", Merit/NSFNET, June 1993.

        RFC 1483:  Heinanen, Juha, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over
                   ATM Adaptation Layer 5", Telecom Finland,
                   July 1993.

        RFC 1484:  Hardcastle-Kille, S., "Using the OSI Directory
                   to Achieve User Friendly Naming (OSI-DS 24
                   (v1.2)", ISODE Consortium, July 1993.

        RFC 1485:  Hardcastle-Kille, S., "A String Representation
                   of Distinguished Names (OSI-DS 24 (v1.2)",
                   ISODE Consortium, July 1993.

        RFC 1486:  Rose, M., (Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.),
                   C. Malamud, (Internet Multicasting Service),
                   "An Experiment in Remote Printing", July 1993.

        RFC 1487:  Yeong, W. (PSI), T. Howes (University of Michigan)
                   S. Kille (ISODE Consortium), July 1993.

        RFC 1488:  Howes, T, (University of Michigan), S. Kille
                   (ISODE Consortium), W. Yeong (PSI Int'l), C. Robbins
                   (NeXor Ltd), "The X.500 String Representation of
                   Standard Attribute Syntaxes", July 1993.

        RFC 1489:  Chernov, A., "Registration of a Cyrillic Character
                   Set", RELCOM Development Team, July 1993.

        RFC 1490:  Bradley, T., C. Brown, (Wellfleet Comm.), and
                   A. Malis (Ascom Timeplex, Inc.), "Multiprotocol
                   Interconnect over Frame Relay", July 1993.

        RFC 1491:  Weider, C., Merit Network, Inc., and R. Wright,
                   LBL, "A Survey of Advanced Usages of X.500",
                   July 1993.

        RFC 1492:  Finseth, C., "An Access Control Protocol,
                   Sometimes Called TACACS", University of Minnesota,
                   July 1993.

        RFC 1493:  Decker, E. (Cisco), P. Langielle (DEC),
                   A. Rijsinghani (DEC), K. McCloghrie, Hughes LAN
                   Systems, Inc., "Definitions of Managed Objects for
                   Bridges", July 1993.

     Ann Cooper (Cooper@ISI.EDU)




Cooper                                                         [Page 28]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     MULTIMEDIA CONFERENCING

     At the Amsterdam IETF, there were two meetings of the newly created
     WG on Multiparty Multimedia Session Control (MMusic).  This
     represented the first time we were able to get beyond the
     groundwork and delve into the details for a strawman communications
     substrate.  Detailed minutes and slides may be found in
     venera.isi.edu:confctrl/minutes as "ietf.7.93" and "slides.7.93.ps"
     respectively.

     Two channels of live audio and video were multicast from the
     Amsterdam IETF meeting, the fifth such multicast.  The cumulative
     total of remote hosts that joined into the audio multicast was 518.
     For the first time, this was slightly more than the number of
     people who attended locally (approximately 490).  Thanks to the
     efforts of a number of people, both in Amsterdam and elsewhere
     around the MBONE, to re-engineer the topology of the MBONE, this
     multicast was much improved over the previous ones in that both
     channels of audio and video worked to most places most of the week.
     However, the quality was often "listenable" but not "good".  We
     need further work on performance monitoring so we can find and fix
     bottlenecks.

     During July, the IETF AVT working group discussed via email how
     transport-layer demultiplexing should be done in the Realtime
     Transport Protocol (RTP).  The results of this discussion, and some
     revisions to the protocol options for security, were incorporated
     by Henning Schulzrinne into a new Internet Draft of the spec,
     dubbed the "next-to-last call" within the working group.

     Steve Casner, Eve Schooler (casner@ISI.EDU, schooler@ISI.EDU)

JVNCNET
-------

   JvNCnet-Global Enterprise Services, Inc.
      3 Independence Way
      Princeton, NJ  08540
      1-800-35-TIGER

      I.  New Information

             GES has moved to a new location at the Princeton Corporate
             Center.  (Address above).
             Main number is  (609) 897-7300; fax (609) 897-7310.
             Network operations center (NOC) telephone numbers are:
             (609) 897-7318, 897-7319, and 897-7320.




Cooper                                                         [Page 29]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


      II. Symposia Series (open to the public)

             A.  Internet Information Services and Implementation
                 Procedures
                 Date:      September 9, 1993
                 Location:  Princeton Marriott Forrestal Village,
                            Plainsboro, NJ
                 Audience:  Network information systems specialists,
                            computer consultants, and network technical
                            staff including system managers of TCP/IP-
                            based networks responsible for managing an
                            Internet connection and installing network
                            services.  Additionally, those who will
                            manage a new Internet system or anyone new
                            to the Internet who is interested in
                            learning  about internet information
                            services will benefit from attendance.

                 Speakers include:  Mark Lindner (gopher), Alan
                            Emtage (archie), and Jim Fullton (WAIS).

                 Early bird special for registration by Sep. 3, 1993
                 JvNCnet Members.....$250;      non-members.....$275.
                               After September 3:
                 JvNCnet Members.....$295;      non-members.....$325

                 Registration and information:
                    Email to hammer@jvnc.net or call 609-897-7315.

             B.  GES has scheduled Cisco router configuration classes.

                 Audience: Network managers, operations staff,
                           technicians, and anyone involved with the
                           configuration and management of routing
                           and bridging equipment.
                 --Knowledge of basic routing principles, TCP/IP, or
                 OSI is recommended but not required.

                 Class location:
                            GES office in Princeton, NJ.

                 Length:    Router Configuration Course is five days:
                            Monday - Thursday  9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
                            Friday -  9:00 am to 3:00 pm.







Cooper                                                         [Page 30]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


                 First five-day session begins July 26-July 30.
                 Subsequent course dates:
                            August 9-13, 30-3 September
                            September 13-17, 27-1 October
                            October 11-15
                            November 1-5, 15-19, 29-3 December
                            December 13-17

                 Request course outline, price, and other details
                 from instructor Steven Williams at:
                            (609) 897-7314 or
                            email to williams@jvnc.net

   by Rochelle Hammer (hammer@jvnc.net)

MERIT/MICHNET
-------------

     As members of the IETF working group NASREQ, MichNet engineers John
     Vollbrecht, Allan Rubens, Glenn McGregor, Larry Blunk and Richard
     Conto have published the internet draft "Network Access Server
     Proposed Requirements Document" (draft-ietf-nasreq-
     nasrequirements-01.txt).  This document focuses on issues of
     authentication, authorization and accounting support for the
     Network Access Server (NAS) in its role of providing access to a
     wide range of environments.

     After an initial review of vendors and their available products,
     Merit chose to work with Livingston in implementing a pilot NAS
     supporting MichNet requirements of authentication, common user
     interface, and a means by which to track patterns of network use.
     Beta test of the Livingston Portmaster at the University of
     Michigan MichNet site has begun, with initial indications of
     superior performance for PPP and SLIP access.  Network Access
     Servers will ultimately be deployed throughout the MichNet
     backbone, providing state-of-the-art network access to users around
     the state.

     As announced earlier, use of SLIP (Serial Line Internet Protocol)
     and SLFP (Serial Line Framing Protocol) are now restricted to basic
     TCP/IP service, ftp, telnet, finger, and Quote of the Day, on
     MichNet public ports.  Unrestricted access requires the use of PPP
     (Point-to-Point Protocol) and authorization for a full service
     connection.  MichNet is encouraging serial TCP/IP users to move to
     PPP, a true Internet standard and a newer protocol offering better
     performance and authorization for access to some services.





Cooper                                                         [Page 31]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     The Michigan Molecular Institute (MMI) is the most recent MichNet
     affiliate.  Providing graduate level courses in polymer science in
     conjunction with several Michigan colleges and universities, the
     Institute is involved in advanced research and the development of
     polymers and polymer composites.

     Jo Ann Ward (jaw@merit.edu)

MERIT/NSFNET ENGINEERING
------------------------

     This report is a summary of the major activities carried out by
     Merit's Internet Engineering Group during the period of June and
     July of 1993, which included: improvement of the NSFNET
     configuration process; routing coordination for the Russian
     networks; organizing the NSFNET regional tech meeting;
     participation and organizing of several IETF working group
     meetings; and progress on implementation of IDRP.

     I. Improvement of the NSFNET configuration process

        The number of networks configured (and requested to be
        configured) for the NSFNET backbone continue to increase
        rapidly, with an average monthly growth rate of 7-10%. To keep
        pace with the work load, we have continued to improve the NSFNET
        configuration process.  We have made major progress in that area
        and significant improvement in efficiency has been achieved.

        (1) Use of powerful UNIX tools:

        As our migration from the mainframe-based database to UNIX-based
        relational database was completed in the first quarter of this
        year, more readily available and powerful UNIX tools have been
        used to facilitate the configuration tasks, including tracking
        of configuration requests (e.g., use "mh", "diff", and "fgrep"
        to quickly group related requests and eliminate duplicate
        requests), deployment of configuration files (e.g., "rcp" or
        "rdist"), and automated acknowledgement for configuration
        requests (by use of "mh" scripts).

        (2) Streamlined process for non-US requests:

        Now that the registration process for non-US nets no longer
        requires a confirmation step (in most cases) from NSF or from
        foriegn reps, Merit has implemented a set of streamlined
        procedure for accepting and configuring non-US networks. The
        current policy is that a NACR for non-US networks may be
        submitted directly to nsfnet-admin@merit.edu by an authorized



Cooper                                                         [Page 32]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        person of a NSFNET midlevel/regional.  This procedure has helped
        to expedite configuration processing of non-US nets.

        (3) Adoption of NACR 7.0:

        To allow for a more efficient and scalable approach, a version
        of machine parsable "network announcement change request" (NACR)
        template was adopted in June, 1993. This version of NACR is
        simpler, and easier to fill out, than previously versions. A new
        field called "home AS" has been added to this new version and
        this information will be made available to the Internet
        community. More importantly, it is machine parsable and can be
        generated by the auto-NACR program (see (4)).

        We recently announced that a block of consecutive Class C
        addresses may be submitted on one NACR to further facilitate the
        NACR submission process. The transition from older NACR versions
        to the new NACR 7.0 was smooth and has been successfully
        completed. The cooperation from the NSFNET regionals in this
        transition has been excellent. The new NACR template and
        instructions are available from nic.merit.edu:
        nsfnet/announced.networks/template.net.README
        nsfnet/announced.networks/template.net

        (4) Auto-NACR Program:

        To enhance data validation and to facilitate the submission of
        NACRs, a program called Auto-NACR (or NACR Server) was developed
        and deployed in May. A designated person of NSFNET regionals may
        connect with the program to submit a NACR. The NACR Server
        program is curser driven with extensive on-line help. It checks
        the InterNic "whois" information and the Merit's PRDB to fill in
        some information, and it validates many fields in real time. A
        NACR in the electronic mail format will be generated and
        delivered to all related AS's once all the fields on NACR have
        been properly filled in.

        (5) Enhancement of NACR parser:

        The work on enhancing the Lex-based NACR parser has been
        completed. We have added more effective NACR validations to
        catch inconsistencies and the parser is more flexible and can
        handle more NACR variations.

        (6) Automation of "whois" check:

        For all configuration requests, the network and orgnization
        information is validated with the InterNic "whois" information



Cooper                                                         [Page 33]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        before the network is configured. The process of the InterNic
        "whois" validation has been partially automated. The work load
        on this part has been reduced substantially. We also expect that
        this automation would help us to catch typos and other types of
        errors and inconsistencies more easily.

     II. Routing Coordination for Russian networks

        Up until June 1993, announcements of Russian networks to the
        NSFNET/ANSnet backbone were not accepted. Merit coordinated with
        NSF and ANS on the planning and implementation of routing of
        traffic to and from Russian networks on the ANS backbone. The
        plan allows announcements of Russian networks to be accepted,
        but only for the purposes of communication with ANS's customers.
        Traffic to and from Russia will not be carried by the shared
        NSFNET Backbone Services. In particular, Russian traffic will
        not be passed to other federal agency networks. Russian networks
        have been configured on the NSFNET/ANSnet backbone according to
        this routing implementation plan.

        (1) The "no-install" feature of the  rcp_routed allows
        configuration of specific networks neither to be advertised to
        any peer nor installed in the forwarding tables even if received
        from an internal link. This feature has been used at the
        following sites to actively filtering traffic to and/or from
        these Russian networks.

                E135 San Diego, E137 Princeton, E144 FIX-West,
                E145 FIX-East, E146 ARPA

        All of the AS's bordering these ENSS's are NSFNET service users,
        and we are actively filtering routes for them.

        (2) The "no-announce" feature of the rcp_routed allows
        configuration of specific networks not to be advertised to
        certain peer AS's but these networks may be announced to other
        peers and will be installed in the forwarding table if received
        from an internal link. This feature has been used at the
        following sites to disallow advertisement of these Russian
        network to certain peers.

          E129 Champaign, E130 Argonne, E133 Ithaca, E134 Boston,
          E136 College Park, E139 Houston, E141 Boulder, E143 Seattle

        All of these AS's are NSFNET service users, but the no-announce
        feature (weak filtering) was used because the ENSS was shared
        with CO+RE customers. These AS's should use explicit
        announcements for reachability, or have some other path to the



Cooper                                                         [Page 34]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        Russian nets.

     III. NSFNET Regional Techs Meeting

        A meeting of the NSFNET Regional Techs group was held June 10th
        and 11th in Reston, Virginia at the headquarters of Sprint,
        International.  The major topics discussed at the meeting are
        summarized as follows.

        (1) Configuration of NSFNET for Aggregation
            Steve Richardson, Merit, Dale Johnson, Merit

        The session discussed what the NSFNET backbone will offer in
        terms of initial support of CIDR. An overview of the process of
        configuring the backbone was given by Dale Johnson, who noted
        that this process will see minimal changes in moving to CIDR.
        Steve Richardson presented what has since been published as RFC
        1482 (by M. Knopper and S.  Richardson), "Aggregation Support in
        the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing Database," illustrating the
        following services:

          - the NSFNET will accept announcements of aggregates (coming
            from CIDR-capable regional peer routers);

          - the NSFNET will "aggregate by proxy" for CIDR-incapable
            regional peers;

          - the NSFNET will announce aggregates (from either of the
            above sources) to regional peers.

        Merit proposed the service of Aggregate Registry to aid
        midlevel/regionals and other service providers in coordinating
        CIDR aggregates and deployment.  (See the RFC for details.)

        (2) GATED Support of CIDR
            Dennis Ferguson, ANS, Jeff Honig, Cornell

        This session presented the capabilities of gated with respect to
        CIDR. In particular the BGP implementation and status were
        described, as well as the configuration capabilities of gated
        with BGP-4.

        (3)  Registration Issues for IP Aggregates
             Mark Knopper, Merit, Scott Williamson, Mark Kosters,
             InterNIC/NSI






Cooper                                                         [Page 35]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        The registration of aggregates into the various databases, e.g.
        Merit/NSFNET, RIPE and InterNIC, requires some changes to the
        way contact and organizational information is associated with
        network number/name. This discussion covered the changes
        necessary to the databases. The session suggests that further
        discussions are necessary to further address sereval
        registration issues, especially the issue of ip number
        "ownership".

        (4) Proposals for Representation and Sharing of Routing
            Policy Information
            Peter Ford

        Daniel Karrenberg and Enke Chen presented an overview of RIPE-81
        paper and RPDL paper, respectively. The discussion at the
        meeting seemed to suggest that the "AS path" selection may not
        be needed soon, but network level filtering is needed (such as
        the current NSFNET policy).  Also, these two representions need
        to be combined. RIPE and Merit agreed to implement compatible
        database access and representations such that routing registry
        tools will be compatible across the two databases.

        (5)  Route Server Deployment
             Elise Gerich, Merit, Andrew Partan, AlterNet

        Deployment of route servers at the MAE-East "experimental NAP"
        is taking place, and the status of this cooperative effort were
        given in this session. The routing plan for each of the route
        servers was covered, along with configuration issues. RIPE and
        Merit are operating route servers at MAE-East, with Alternet/CIX
        planning deployment of another route server.

        (6)  NSFNET Policy Routing Database Implementation Status
             Andy Adams, Merit, Enke Chen, Merit

        Andy Adams presented an overview of the design and
        implementation of the Merit/NSFNET policy based routing database
        system that is now being used to configure the NSFNET backbone.
        Enke Chen summarized Merit's work on improving the NSFNET
        configuration process, including NACR 7.0 and the NACR Server
        program.

        (7)  NSFNET Solicitation Status
             Dan Jordt, NorthWestNet

        Quite a few questions were raised and discussed about the
        Solicitation. Some issues were further clarified by Peter Ford
        and Priscilla Huston who represented NSF.  Many regional techs



Cooper                                                         [Page 36]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        expressed concerns about the transition schedule and urged NSF
        to allow adequate time for a smooth and stable transition. Peter
        Ford emphasized that the NSF would do whatever it takes to
        ensure a stable transition, and the NSF sincerely wecomes
        suggestions.

        (8)  ANSNET Backbone Status Report
             Jordan Becker, ANS

        The T3 backbone status was covered including recent and planned
        deployment of new software and hardware for the backbone
        routers.

     IV. IETF BGP-Deployment Working Group:

        Jessica (Jie Yun) Yu chaired the BGP Deployment Working Group at
        the July IETF at Amsterdam to discuss CIDR deployment.  At the
        meeting, the initial CIDR deployment plan and routing
        aggregation rules developed at the March Network Service
        Providers' CIDR meeting and Merit NSFNET Regional-Tech meetings
        were discussed and enhanced.

        The initial deployment plan:

                Step 1. Deploy BGP4 without aggregation
                Step 2. Advertise test aggregated route
                Step 3. Aggregate at site level OR single policy level
                        whichever with a smaller block
                |->Step 4.-| Understand more
                |--Step 5.<- Aggregate more

                Step 4 and step 5 are recursive until CIDR is fully
                implemented.

        Rules of Aggregation at Initial deployment stage:

                o Aggregate based on manual configuration
                o Proxy aggregation allowed (but agree by advertiser)
                o Holes in aggregates allowed
                o IGP/IBGP carry aggregation within a domain
                o Coordination: bi-lateral and overall
                o Aggregate Routing Registry needed
                o No aggregation without informing others
                o No de-aggregation

        Engineers from 3com, ANS, cisco, EuropaNet, Proteon and
        Wellfleet reported the status of BGP4/CIDR implementation. Some
        of them have beta version software already and some of them



Cooper                                                         [Page 37]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


        project to have implementation by the beginning of the next
        year. Interoperability test strategies were also discussed.

        Analysis on CIDR's impact on IPv4 ROAD (Routing and Addressing)
        was also discussed and a group of volunteers would produce a
        paper on the subject.

        See BGPDepl WG Jul IETF minutes for more detailed information.

     V. IETF TUBA working group

        Mark Knopper chaired two TUBA working group meetings at the
        IETF, one of which was a joint meeting with the NOOP working
        group and the RARE CLNS working group. Merit and ANS also
        participated in the TUBA demonstration.  Several TUBA hosts were
        set up in Ann Arbor, including a pair of modified BSD/386
        systems and a PC running NCSA Telnet.

        Significant agreements resulting from the meetings included:
        RIPE NCC agreed to host a routing registry for CLNP networks.
        The ISO network layer standards will be released as RFCs. The
        TUBA documents were recommended by the groups to go forward for
        the Internet standards track.

     VI. IDRP implementation status

        In June Merit held a seminar for participants in the ATN
        (Aeronautical Telecommunications Network), including a status
        report and tutorial on our IDRP (in gated) implementation.  The
        IDRP implementation supports both IP and CLNP routing.  It is
        currently in test/debug and is available -- for experimentation
        purposes only! -- on request from John Scudder or Sue Hares
        (jgs@merit.edu or skh@merit.edu).  We expect to make the
        implementation generally available later this year.

        The first year of the FAA grant for IDRP implementation was
        completed, and funding has been approved for an additional 18
        months. This funding has allowed Merit to join the GateD
        Consortium.

        Mark Knopper (mak@merit.edu)










Cooper                                                         [Page 38]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


MERIT/NSFNET INFORMATION SERVICES
---------------------------------

     Network Information Center (NIC) Profiles, a database of
     information on existing NICs designed to be easily accessible via
     the Internet, is available via Merit's Gopher server at
     nic.merit.edu port 70, or indirectly through the international
     Gopher tunnels.  By default, NICs are displayed in alpha order by
     commonName.  X.500 search options currently include the database
     attributes commonName, contactName, servicesOffered and
     publicationsOffered.  Still in a beta version, NIC Profiles is
     subject to further refinement, with efforts especially directed
     toward expanding options to a more flexible search mechanism.

     NIC Profiles is a project initiated by the Network Information
     Services Infrastructure (NISI) working group of the IETF.  Pat
     Smith, Merit Network Information Services and co-chair of NISI,
     Rick Schmalgemeier and Chris Weider of Merit, and Tim Howes of the
     University of Michigan were responsible for the Internet
     availability of this project.

     Indonesia became the newest international site with announcement to
     the NSFNET backbone during July.  Foreign networks now number 5,827
     of the total 14,121 networks announced to the NSFNET backbone.
     Growth as reflected in the number of domestic and foreign networks
     having announcement to the NSFNET infrastructures, as well as
     network distribution by country over the term of the NSFNET project
     are available for Anonymous FTP from the host nic.merit.edu as

                  /nsfnet/statistics/history.netcount
     and
                  /nsfnet/statistics/nets.by.country

     respectively.  These files may also be received via electronic
     mail query.  The message should be sent to

                  nis-info@nic.merit.edu

     with the first line of text (not subject)

                  send history.netcount

     A new directory on nic.merit.edu, conference.proceedings, contains
     the proceedings from network related conferences.  Papers presented
     at the Public Access to the Internet Symposium, held at the Kennedy
     School of Government on May 25 and 26, 1993, are available in the
     subdirectory /conference.proceedings/harvard.pubaccess.symposium




Cooper                                                         [Page 39]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     Other new information available on nic.merit.edu via Anonymous FTP,
     e-mail query and Gopher:

     The revised version of HR 1757, the National Information
     Infrastructure bill introduced by Representative Boucher, courtesy
     of the CPSR Internet Library.  Available as
     /nren/nii.1993/hr1757.txt

     Result of U.S. House of Representatives vote on HR 1757, as
     published on the mailing list nren-discuss@psi.com.  Available as
     /nren/nii.1993/hr1757.status

     "Aggregation Support in the NSFNET Policy-Based Routing Database"
     by Mark Knopper and Steven J. Richardson of Merit has been
     published as RFC 1482.  This document describes the proposed
     support of route aggregation, as specified in Classless Inter-
     Domain Routing (CIDR) and the BGP-4 protocol by the NSFNET Backbone
     Network Service.  Available as /internet/documents/rfc/rfc1482.txt

     Growth as reflected in the number of computers and domain names on
     the Internet as reported in the Internet Domain Survey by SRI
     International.  Available as /nsfnet/statistics/history.hosts

     Chris Weider of the IETF WNILS working group, is proceeding with
     development of the Whois++ Internet directory tool.  Server code is
     expected to be available for release in mid-August.

     Representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration
     came to Ann Arbor for a two-day intensive course on Internet tools
     and resources by Merit Information Services staff.  Intensive
     hands-on sessions with WAIS, Gopher and X-Mosaic, were interspersed
     with discussions of the issues facing information providers.

     Merit staff traveled to Amsterdam, The Netherlands, to participate
     in IETF proceedings and chair several working groups.  Merit
     Internet Engineering was represented by Mark Knopper, Sue Hares,
     Jessica Yu, Laurent Joncheray and John Scudder; Dale Johnson
     attended on behalf of Network Management Systems; Ellen Hoffman,
     Pat Smith and Chris Weider represented the interests of Merit's
     Information Services.

     Ellen Hoffman and Pat Smith were invited to the Library of Congress
     to speak on Internet tools and resources by the Federal Library and
     Information Center Committee of the Library of Congress.  The
     content was designed for the audience of federal librarians from
     various agencies, and included a new discussion by Hoffman,
     "Publishing on the Internet," how to implement Internet tools and
     design information resources for ease of use.  Elise Gerich, of



Cooper                                                         [Page 40]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     Merit Internet Engineering, spoke on IP address allocation at the
     Third Russian Forum: Electronic Communication Technology of the
     90's held in Moscow, Russia.  Issues of Internet connectivity were
     addressed by Gerich at the Russian Space Science Institute (IKI)
     while in Moscow.

     Jo Ann Ward (jward@merit.edu)

NEARNET (NEW ENGLAND ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH NETWORK)
---------------------------------------------------

     NEARnet Membership Update
     -------------------------

     As of July 30, 1993, NEARnet has grown to a total of 235
     member organizations.

     NEARnet Transitions to BBN Technology Services, Inc.
     ----------------------------------------------------

     On July 1, John Rugo, the NEARnet Project Manager, sent a
     message announcing the NEARnet transition to several
     NEARnet-specific e-mail lists.  A copy of the transition
     press release is available via anonymous FTP on
     ftp.near.net, in the file:

     docs/nearnet-transition-press-release-txt.

     In his message John mentioned that BBN Technology Services
     Inc. has assumed responsibility for NEARnet activities.
     This is an organizational change; NEARnet services will
     continue to be provided by the same staff within BBN.

     NEARnet Conference Participation in July
     ----------------------------------------
     Sean Kennedy of the NEARnet Network Analysis Group attended
     the IETF in Amsterdam, July 12-16.

     Alanna MacDonald <macdonal@nic.near.net>

NORTHWESTNET
------------

     Representatives from US West, Pacific Bell, Bellcore, and
     NYNEX spent time with NorthWestNet staff learning about the
     Internet and, more specifically, about the mission, goals,
     programs, and services of NorthWestNet.  During their visit,
     they met with project leaders at NorthWestNet member sites



Cooper                                                         [Page 41]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     including the University of Washington, Boeing, National
     Oceanic Atmospheric Agency/Pacific Marine Environmental
     Labs, XKL Systems, and the Bush School.  Conversations
     between the groups were both stimulating and enlightening.
     The visitors from Bellcore, the Regional Bell Operating
     Companies and NorthWestNet agreed to meet again this autumn
     to craft a standard glossary of network terminology to
     facilitate future discussion and promote cooperation.

     Ken Kay, executive director of the Computer Systems Policy
     Project, and Karen Christensen, attorney for National Public
     Radio, spent a four-day sabbatical with NorthWestNet's User
     Services group learning about the Internet, its tools,
     resources, and services.  In particular, they focused on
     applications related to government documents, civil rights,
     K-12, and broadcasting.  They were introduced to Gopher,
     World Wide Web, WAIS, archie, Xmosaic, and Usenet along with
     the standard tools of e-mail, FTP, and Telnet.

     Eric Hood and Dan Jordt, director of Technical Services,
     gave an invited presentation at a meeting of the Association
     of Computer and Information Sciences/Engineering Departments
     at Minority Institutions in Washington, D.C.  This meeting
     focused on the vision for Internet connectivity to minority
     institutions.

     New NorthWestNet member organizations during the month of
     July included: Group Health Cooperative, Kalispell Regional
     Hospital, Merle West Medical Center, Providence Hospital,
     and George Fox College.

     NorthWestNet
     ------------
     info@nwnet.net 15400 SE 30th Place, Suite 202
     Phone: (206) 562-3000 Bellevue, WA 98007
     Fax:   (206) 562-4822

     Dr. Eric S. Hood, Executive Director
     Jan Eveleth, Director of User Services
     Dan L. Jordt, Director of Technical Services
     Anthony Naughtin, Manager of Member Relations

     by Jan Eveleth <eveleth@nwnet.net>








Cooper                                                         [Page 42]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


PREPNET
-------

     PREPnet New Members:
     --------------------

          Buckeye Pipe Line Co.                     Emmaus, PA
          Law School Admission Services             Newtown, PA
          Hampton Township School District          Allison Park, PA
          Quaker Valley School District             Sewickley, PA
          Beaver Area School District               Beaver, PA
          Steel Valley School District              Munhall, PA
          Bethel Park School District               Bethel Park, PA
          Shaler Area School District               Glenshaw, PA
          Crawford Central School District          Meadville, PA

          With these new additions, PREPnet has a current total of 133
          members.

          PREPnet News:
          -------------

          On July 27, PREPnet conducted a training session for
          Allegheny Intermediate Unit (Pittsburgh, PA).  Topics
          covered by the session included:

              * Introduction to the Internet and PREPnet
              * TCP/IP protocol suite
              * Extended services and Internet utilities

          For information regarding connectivity options in the
          Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, contact the PREPnet NIC:

            305 S. Craig St.            E-Mail:     nic@prep.net
            2nd Floor                   Telephone:  (412) 268-7870
            Pittsburgh, PA  15213

     PREPnet NIC (prepnet+@andrew.cmu.edu)

UCL
----

     The MICE demonstration at the Internet Engineering Task Force
     (IETF) at the RAI Conference Centre, Amsterdam, July 11-16 1993

     Mark Handley, Angela Sasse, Stuart Clayman, Atanu Ghosh, Peter
     Kirstein and Tony Ballardie attended. Jon Crowcroft and a cast of
     several jugglers attended virtually from London.



Cooper                                                         [Page 43]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     Mice demonstrated:
       the Conference Multiplexing and Management Centre (CMMC)
       interworking between hardware codecs, software codecs and
          ISDN codecs
       interworking between conference rooms and workstations
       integration of multi-way shared workspace applications
       interworking with both European and US sites.

     Sites involved were:
       UCL (London) - Conference Room, CMMC
       Amsterdam, Terminal Room at the IETF, RAI
       GMD Conference room, Darmstadt
       RUS, Stuttgart
       University of Oslo
       Norwegian Telecom Research
       Lawrence Berkeley Labs, California
       Univ. of Hawaii (Sunrise only:-)

     This software allows an H221/H261 serial line codec, such as are
     currently available in many organisations videoconferencing suites,
     to be used over unreliable packet networks. It removes the H.221
     protocol and the accompanying error correction codes in software,
     ready from transmission using RTP, and reinserts H.221 and the CRC
     at the receiver and pads the stream to achieve a valid synchronous
     fixed bit rate stream despite damage caused by packet loss. If is a
     key building block of the CMMC, and will be integral to the
     reference conference room. It should be noted that generating the
     CRC in software is expensive, and is the most limiting factor in
     determining the data rate supportable with a particular
     workstation. For instance, the current limit for a SparcStation 2
     (as used at GMD) is around 192Kb/s for a full duplex link. Further
     work will improve the situation a little, but being able to disable
     the CRC checking in the codec would greatly alleviate this problem

     This software is still under development, but the version exhibited
     proved to be exceptionally stable. The links between London,
     Amsterdam and GMD stayed up for a number of days continuously, with
     the codecs never losing synchronisation due to packet loss. This
     software was successfully also used to interface the CMMC to
     software codecs using the INRIA IVS software, so that a number of
     sites without hardware codecs, such as Van Jacobson in California
     and the Univerisity of Hawaii, could communicate with a conference
     (London-Amsterdam-GMD) ran at much higher frame rates than software
     codecs can currently support.

     The end-to-end delay experienced between London and Amsterdam was
     around 1.5 seconds, and was considered to be usable. The end-to-end
     delay experienced from GMD was considerably larger, but as less



Cooper                                                         [Page 44]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     time had been spent on configuring this link, and an older version
     of the software was in use.  Currently a number of parameters in
     the software are manually configurable. As we gain experience with
     their configuration, we can expect to reduce these delays further.
     There is however a tradeoff between stability and minimum delay,
     and for demonstration purposes we chose to opt for maximum
     stability.  As we better understand the complex interactions
     involved, much of this configuration will be performed
     automatically, thus reducing the delays without sacrificing
     stability.

     This software currently has to manually ran at both sending and
     receiving sites, although it can be run remotely, for example the
     Amsterdam, the GMD and the three UCL CMMC codecs were all
     controlled from Amsterdam for some of the time, along with the
     video switch at UCL. As the CMMC develops, the need for manual
     intervention will be reduced, as the codec control systems are
     integrated into higher level conference control software.

     Inria Videoconferencing System (IVS) (used at Amsterdam (2nd video
     channel), RUS, Oslo, LBL, Hawaii): This is a software
     implementation of an H.261 video codec. It was demonstrated at
     JENC, and has been documented extensively. However, this is the
     first we have demonstrated the interworking of software and high
     performance hardware codecs, so the sites without full conferencing
     rooms can participate in this sort of conference.

     The end-to-end delays experiences by sites with software codecs
     communicating with the hardware codecs of the CMMC varied
     enormously depending of the load on the machine involved.  On an
     otherwise unloaded SparcStation 10 in Amsterdam, the delay between
     the video received on the hardware codec and that received on the
     workstation was less than one second. However it was noted that if
     the processing power to decode the video exceeds that available,
     network input buffers to IVS start to fill up and the delay
     increases enormously.  Clearly this isn't a problem when IVS sends
     to and IVS on a similar machine, and thus this effect hasn't
     emerged before.  However a small amount of experimentation and
     tuning should greatly reduce this effect.

     The version of IVS used in the demonstration was slightly modified
     to achieve compatibility with the UCL codec software.  This was due
     to the version of the network protocol implemented by UCL being
     slightly older than that implemented by INRIA. This was known well
     before the demonstration, and did not prove to be a problem, but
     will be resolved as soon as possible.





Cooper                                                         [Page 45]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     LBL Visual Audio Tool (vat) (used at all sites, and used by more
     than 500 people to listen to the IETF conference itself)

     We observed that problems with audio quality are not always due to
     packet loss; we tried to gather statistics whenever problems with
     the audio occurred, and found that in some cases, the problems were
     due to local problems with microphones and speakers, or the way in
     which the participants were using VAT.  This highlights the
     importance of making sure that the peripherals (mikes, speakers,
     cameras etc.) are set up and used properly. At this stage, some
     audio/visual expertise is extremely useful. Further diagnostic
     tools and procedures are required, knowledge on these needs to be
     pooled and made available, e.g. in the form of catalogues on what
     equipment works with what other equipment instruction on how to
     synchronise volume levels

     Various whiteboard programs from other projects were also tested -
     these will no doubt be reported elsewhere.

     John Crowcroft (j.crowcroft@CS.UCL.AC.UK)































Cooper                                                         [Page 46]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


CALENDAR
--------

Readers are requested to send in dates of events that are appropriate
for this calendar section.  Please send your submissions to
(cooper@isi.edu).

1993 CALENDAR

     Aug 1-6         Multimedia '93, Anaheim, CA
     Aug 17-20       INET93, San Francisco,
                     (Request@inet93.stanford.edu)
     Aug 23-27       INTEROP93, San Francisco
                     Dan Lynch (dlynch@interop.com)
     Sep 13-17       SIGCOMM 93, San Francisco
     Sep ??          6th SDL Forum, Darmstadt
                     Ove Faergemand (ove@tfl.dk)
     Sep 8-9         ANSI  X3S3.3, Boulder, CO
     Sep 13-17       OIW, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD
     Sep 14 -?       IFIP TC6. GMD-Fokus, 2nd Intl Conf. on
                     Open Distributed Processing ICODP12, Berlin
     Sep 20-31       ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6, Seoul, Korea.
     Sep 28-29       September RIPE Technical Days, TBC
     Oct             INTEROP93, Paris, France
     Oct 5-6         IFIP WG 6.6 Intl Workshop on Distributed Systems:
                     Operations and Management DSOM'93.
     Oct 12-14       Conference on Network Information Processing,
                     Sofia, Bulgaria;  Contact: IFIP-TC6
     Oct 18-22       TCOS WG, Atlanta, GA (tentative)
     Nov 1-5         IETF Houston, TX.
     Nov 2-4         ANSI  X3S3.3, TBD
     Nov 2-4         EMAIL World
                     Contact: Einar Steffurd <stef@nma.com>
     Nov 9-13        IEEE802 Plenary, Crown Sterling Suites,
                     Ft. Lauderdale, FL
     Nov 15-19       Supercomputing 93, Portland, OR
     Dec 6-10        OIW, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD

1994 CALENDAR

     Feb 3-4         ISOC Symposium on network and Distributed
                     System Security, San Diego, (nessett@llnl.gov)
     Mar 28-Apr 1    IETF Meeting - Seattle, Washington (tentative)
     May 2-6         NetWorld+INTEROP 94, Las Vegas, Nevada
                     Dan Lynch (dlynch@interop.com)
     Jun 1-3         IFIP WG 6.5 ULPAA, Barcelona, Spain
                     Einar Stefferud (stef@nma.com)
     Jul 25-29       IETF Meeting - Toronto, Canada (tentative)



Cooper                                                         [Page 47]

Internet Monthly Report                                        July 1993


     Aug 28-Sep 2    IFIP World Computer Congress
                     Hamburg, Germany; Contact: IFIP
     Sep 12-14       NetWorld+INTEROP 94, Atlanta, Georgia
                     Dan Lynch (dlynch@interop.com)

1995 CALENDAR

     Sep 18-22       INTEROP95, San Francisco, CA
                     Dan Lynch (dlynch@interop.com)

1996 CALENDAR

     Sep 2-6         14th IFIP World Computer Congress
                     Canberra, Australia  Contact: IFIP
========================================================================




































Cooper                                                         [Page 48]
