CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Phill Gross/CNRI NJM Minutes Agenda o The role of the NJM WG o Request for statistics from researchers o Maps o Operations Area The role of the NJM WG. Historically the National Nets have been represented. Matt Mathis wants to hear national net information at NJM meetings. For example, SNMP Session names, and information on T3 migration. However, we agreed this should be more than just an NSFnet group. Although there is some overlap with TEWG, TEWG concentrates on topology while NJM concentrates on management and monitoring. Request for statistics by researchers Phill Gross has received several requests for stats from bona fide researchers. The issue is to get real data for models and simulations, and to do performance analysis. Gross asked how many regional networks kept stats. About 10, the majority of those present, kept stas. Mathis: PSC collects about 20 mbyte per month. Most goes to tape. PSC tends to get their needs met without requiring much analysis. Guy Almes listed 3 kinds of stats: 1) Reliability, 2) Character of usage (i.e., NNstat, end points pairs, protocol types), and 3) Performance, congestion. Finkelson: Most analysis programs are local with different formats. He uses NYSER package to collect SNMP data and uses graduate students for data reduction. That seemed typical. Data tends to be regional specific, and format is special, often reduced. Also, commercial clients of the nets may object to net management data being freely given out to researchers. Almes: ``Character of usage'' data is sensitive to some users. Perhaps, IRTF could characterize kinds of data they want and we could work toward provding it. Real data is best. Using real data is good for us too. 1 Dan Wiverhan (OSU): OSU has tool that monitors multiple ethernets; runs on PC; tells protocols and end-points; Based on KA9Q; Supports SNMP. Long discussion ensued on various types of date collection. Gross: It either MIB or NNstat-based. Apparently, some vendors are reluctant because makes their boxes slower. Perhaps a smaller set of common stats would meet better acceptance from vendors. We tried to draw up a list of ``low impact, high yield'' metrics. Perhaps we should develop a subset of MIB that everyone should archive in standard format, with standardized time granularity. Maps Questions: Should USWG catalog all on-line MAP sites? Should format be standardized (e.g., Dated to show currency, All line speeds shown)? Who is working on mapping techniques (MERIT and Bellcore)? Are maps really used to debug a problem to another site? They are often too far out of date. Many folks said they used maps to debug. Also useful in topology planning. Counter by Mathis: Maps often don't show interesting (i.e., surprising) links. Ted Brunner (Bellcore) is working on auto map generation. [He gave a demo that afternoon.] Uses MIB. For better display, will probably need more MIB objects than currently available. He has extended MIB to hold extra information. This became an interesting topic. Gross was asked to make sure this was on the agenda for the next meeting. Other efforts? Gross and Enger mentioned the Contel ``net-feeb'' program. People are interested. Will contel make available? Bottom line of this topic - Maps are potentially very useful, but would be much better with better methods (e.g., common formats, auto generation, up-to-date). Operations Area Gross: This may not be in NJM Charter, but this group can give important feed-back/advice. Should IETF Operations Area be pro-active or re-active? Formal or informal? Liason only? Should IETF propose a set of guidelines for Internet operations? What other groups should be involved? Should we reach to local managers directly, or through Farnet? Should we identify one Area Director or ``Board of Directors''? Almes: More operations folks need to attend the standards sessions. Gross: Differences between ANSI and IETF standards setting process. More user and operations input at IETF. Bottom line -- An active operations area is important. Interaction with protocol development is very important. See the operations area report 2 for more detailed description of the group consensus about the operations area. The IETF Chair gives his thanks to the NJM Working Group for helping to formulate the direction for the IETF Operations Area. 3