IETF JOMAAN WORKING GROUP minutes of 2/6/89 Philip Almquist, secretary I: Announcement of User to User Connectivity Problems Working Group - new IETF group, chaired by Dan Long of BBN - will produce a paper on how end users can/should seek to resolve Internet connectivity problems - relationship to JOMAAN to be determined - unfortunately, neither group can fix broken hosts or broken administrators II: Mailing addresses - mailing list: njm@merit.edu (njm-request@merit.edu) - chairperson: hastings@psc.edu III: Charter - Gene will mail it out again IV: SNMP community names - all routers should support "monitor" - routers under the sole control of the regional NOC should support the NSFNET backbone community name - if neither of the above work to contact some gateway, try "public" - NSI "agrees in principle" to support community names that they will make available to regional NOC's - ditto for ESNET - regular polling of routers belonging to other organizations is a no-no, except that routers connecting two routing domains may be monitored by both NOC's (and should probably send traps to both NOC's). - the above restrictions on "regular polling" do not preclude sending queries to any router while actively debugging a problem V: Network maps 1 - Merit is 90regional maps which are accessible via anonymous FTP - regionals which have maps available via anonymous FTP should send pointers to them to the njm list; Merit will treat this as an implicit request to regularly retrieve copies of the map - all maps should include a creation date VI: NSFNET <--> BBN core interactions - MERIT and DCA have been working on coordinating responses to mailbridge problems at the FIX locations VII: BITNET II - Scott Brim expressed concern that BITNET II is being designed by people who do not understand the Internet topology. Thus, the substantial new load it will place on the Internet may occur in inappropriate places. Scott will investigate further. VIII: Traceroute - several reported that third party traceroute is a real win, and hoped that other routers would support it soon IX: Appropriate us of the "status-reports" mailing list - the list is appropriate only for reports of current or very recent events, such as * "X will be down from ___ until ___" * "X is down" * "X was be down from ___ until ___" - Summary data can be interesting, but should be posted elsewhere X: FARNET Report (by Guy Almes) - FARNET wants increased FARNET<->IETF cooperation. Regionals should send people to IETF meetings; these people should report back to the regional operators and planners - periodic reports of usage/uptimes/etc. are useful (eg, the NSFNET and CERFNET monthly reports). People interested in helping to devise common reporting measures should send mail to Guy. - is application throughput commensurate with theoretical path bandwidths (ie, is performance as good as it ought to be)? This is an 2 important question for assessing whether we run networks well and for justifying expensive, high-speed paths. Can we develop a "Dow Jones" average of network performance? Would this measure anything useful, or are most problems just broken TCP's that we have no control over? Interested parties should contact Guy about starting a joint IETF<->FARNET project in this area. XI: NSFNET information files - there was a request to the NSF NIC to provide a file of responsible persons indexed by network number - other ideas for similar useful files should be sent to nsfnet-info XII: NREN planning - Steve Goldstein of NSF wants input on how NIC's and NOC's should be organized in the NREN - Gene will send his ideas to the njm list; others may respond XIII: Whois service - NREN will use an X.500-based whois equivalent - some suggested that (in the shorter term) the existing NIC whois should be replicated on additional machines (this may not be practical) 3