CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Laura Breeden/FARNET Minutes of the Perspectives on the Next Generation of the NSFnet BOF At this BOF, Laura Breeden of FARNET reviewed the results of a meeting held the previous week to discuss and analyze the NSF's Draft Solicitation for the next generation of the NSFNET/IINREN. The meeting (on July 9-10) included FARNET members, NSF representatives, other Federal agency representatives, and interested members of the networking community. The purpose was to understand better the goals and intentions of the NSF and to provide commentary to them by August 3. A full report of the two-day workshop is available on host farnet.org, in the farnet/iinren directory. Participants in the BOF were able to ask clarifying questions about NSF's plans as expressed in the FARNET workshop. Peter Ford, one of the architects of the plan, and Laura Breeden, who had extensive notes based on a tape of the NSF presentation, fielded most of the questions. Other workshop attendees also contributed. Key items of interest were the number, location and operating policies of the proposed Network Access Points (NAPs), the NSF requirement for support of video conferencing on the Very High Speed Backbone, and the transition from the current NSFNET to the planned follow-on. The highlights of FARNET's recommendations are: 1. NSF should place the new solicitation more clearly within the NREN context. The introduction to the solicitation should be enhanced or expanded to address the NREN context and to place the NSFNET in that context.... We believe that it is critically important to clarify this relationship, because just as the NSFNET backbone forms the architectural core of the current Internet, the communities attached to the NSFNET provide a strong foundation for continued growth. We hope that the solicitation will include a recognition that the community of scientific scholars has diverse needs, from electronic mail to high-bandwidth applications such as visualization. NSF has a mission and a responsibility to support the entire community. 2. The plans for governance and management of the new infrastructure, and the process for achieving them, should be stronger and more explicit. 3. Transition planning must begin early and must include the provider community -- the organizations and institutions that furnish 1 network services today. 4. Separate the Routing Arbiter function from that of the NAP Manager. The solicitation should separate the Routing Arbiter from the NAP Manager. A majority of the Group, but not the entire Group, felt that it should be mandatory to bid separately on vBNS and NAP provision, but that a bidder should be permitted to show combined (lower) costs as part of the bid if desired. (The Routing Arbiter should remain separate.) 5. Enforcement of ``appropriate use'' policies will continue to be an issue under the new plan. 6. NSF's leadership role in extending networking to all of research and education should be reaffirmed and continued. 7. Criteria for attachment to NAPs and to the vBNS are critical and should be described by NSF in the solicitation. NSF should specify the criteria for attachment to the vBNS and the NAPs in the solicitation. Not doing so invites a bidding war for access, which could destabilize the NSFNET, create unhealthy competition among user institutions, and "skim the cream" from the current set of network service providers. 8. We recommend the following priorities in setting evaluation criteria for the review of responses to the final solicitation.. GOAL PRIORITY Promotion of broad infrastructure Very High Interaction with community, including technology transfer Very High Continuity and stability of services High QOS* measurement, accountability High Advancement of technology High/Medium Commercialization Medium Cost-effectiveness Medium CLNP availability Medium Facilitation of new applications Medium Provision of video services Low/Medium *Quality of service 9. NAP parameters should be based on multiple dimensions and should not be set solely on the basis of cost, which is only one component of the total NSFnet system. 10. We strongly recommend that the following technical requirements be included in the solicitation. 2 The vBNS provider should be required to provide restoration capability among NAPs using proven technology. NSF should require in the solicitation that a plan be developed to connect the current T3 network to the NAPs, as part of the transition from the current backbone to the next generation. The vBNS provider should be able to carry full routing information (given the limitations of route server technology). The vBNS provider should have a publicly available and appropriate MIB (network Management Information Base). Attendees Bill Manning bmanning@rice.edu John Curran jcurran@bbn.com Donald Morris morris@ucar.edu Jane Wojcik jwojcik@bbn.com Patricia Smith psmith@merit.edu Mark Knopper mak@merit.edu Kraig Owen tko@merit.edu John Labbe labbe@merit.edu Evan Wetstone evan@rice.edu Susan Estrada estradas@cerf.net Tony Hain hain@nersc.gov Guy Almes almes@ans.net Peter Ford peter@lanl.gov Padma Krishnaswamy kri@sabre.bellcore.com Dan Jordt danj@nwnet.net E. Paul Love loveep@sdsc.edu Eugene Hastings hastings@a.psc.edu Matt Mathis mathis@a.psc.edu Carol Ward cward@westnet.net Ari Ollikainen ari@es.net Ross Veach rrv@uiuc.edu Marsha Perrott mlp+@andrew.cmu.edu 3