Draft Notes
I. Participants
Michael Behringer, DANTE
Suzanne Burgess, DynCorp/FNC
Woohyong Choi, KAIST
Kilnam Chon, APAN/KAIST
John Dyer, TERENA
Lawrence Law, HARNET
Ingrid Ledererova, Czech Republic
Bill Manning, USC/ISI
Kevin Meynell, TERENA
Bohumila Mullerova, Czech Republic
Forencio Utreras, REUNA
Karel Vietsch, TERENA
II. Action Items
- Propose a meeting after December IETF (in WDC) to identify and coordinate
current mbone operations, multicast deployment, and associated tools.
Explore funding options for this meeting. (NSF, Terena)
- Contact RIPENCC and report to the CCIRN lists with information on
European mbone and topology. (Dyer, Behringer)
- Report to the mail lists where multicast exists on the Asian/Pacific
and Latin American research networks (Utreras, Chon)
- Contact vBNS regarding their efforts to become "multicast aware"
and report back to the mail lists. Send to mail list information
on mbone efforts in NGI and I2. (Burgess)
- A working group chair needs to be appointed. (CCIRN)
III. Proceedings
A. Asian and European Mbone Initiatives
Currently, Asian research networks are not doing as much mbone work
as desired. If the planned APAN connection to the STARTAP in Chicago
is completed, the physical topology for mbone would be simple and mbone
possible. In Europe, the ad hoc coordination done by the RIPENCC
continues and bilateral contacts are made to configure tunnels. TEN34,
a consortium of European research networks, will be multicast aware, but
the exact timing of that is not known.
B. North American Initiatives
In the US, plans are underway to make the vBNS multicast aware (run mroute D,
native multicast). Information on the current vBNS multicast work is available
at http://www.vbns.net/multicast/status.txt and the network is working with
its provider, MCI, to ensure transport with minimum packet loss. In CA*net,
there is sufficient bandwidth for multicast, and their web site (http://www.canarie.ca/c2)
has information on mbone.
C. Ease of Use and Mbone tools
The group discussed the current state of Mbone and possible steps to make it
more accessible. The perspective is that mbone is a tool of researchers, but
not accessible to the average Internet user. Current obstacles to use
include lack of easy-to-use tools, lack of clear hierarchy, and changing network
topology. To overcome the last obstacle noted, NLANR’s work in mbone visualization
(http://www.nlanr.net/Viz/Mbone/) was cited. It was felt that if input
and solutions were not developed for these areas, the commercial development
of multicast technology would move forward without fully addressing these problems
in a non-proprietary manner.
The lack of mbone monitoring tools was cited as another impediment. Those familiar with mbone can setup tunnels, which eat up bandwidth, and slow the network down. Network administrators need some set of monitoring tools to identify the mbone tunnels as opposed to the ad hoc detection methods currently used. There is some work being done on the training of local campus administrators, but additional documentation of detection methods is required. The group briefly discussed the use of Perl scripts to do packet trace and the use of IPv6 for mbone. While there have been no tests of mbone across the 6bone, it is thought that IPv6 will allow prioritization of transmission, and thus, better service.
The question of push technology was briefly discussed, as was the TERENA project DEVISE, which is looking at Internet tools for videoconferencing.
D. CCIRN Working Group proposal
In response to the need for network monitoring tools, it was felt that
the CCIRN could play a coordinating role in collecting body of knowledge
of where multicast monitoring tools exist on the Internet, and distribute
them. Each research network was asked to report on its multicast efforts
and any tools currently used (see above action items). To further
disseminate this information, a workshop on multicast was proposed.