NRIC5, FG4 Report, June 2001

1
Network Reliability and Interoperability Council
V
Focus Group 4 Interoperability
NRIC V Council Meeting June 26, 2001
Ross Callon Juniper Networks Scott
Bradner Harvard University Co-chairs, Focus Group
4
2
Outline

• Charter
• Membership
• Progress to date
• Recommendations / Next Steps

3
Charter
The purpose of Focus Group 4 is to provide
recommendations to the Council that, when
implemented, will facilitate and assure
interoperability of public data networks. The
duties of the Focus Group 4 will be to prepare
studies, reports, and recommendations for
assuring data network interoperability within the
parameters set forth in the NRIC V Charter. Focus
Group 4 will determine what levels of
interoperability are needed. Focus Group 4 will
also monitor future developments to ensure that
interoperability is not at risk. Focus Group 4
will make recommendations with respect to
interoperability issues that may arise from
convergence and digital packet networks. Focus
Group 4 may also make recommendations with
respect to such additional interoperability
issues as the Commission may specify.
4
Active Participants
Equipment Suppliers
Others
Service Providers and/or Network
Operators
ATT Rick Canaday Conxion Jeff Swinton Cox
Alex Best Illuminet Bruce Johnson Genuity
Scott Marcus, Justin Aborn Level3 Doug
Sicker, Todd Branning, Nasser
Elaawar MFN Andrew Partan Qwest Robert
Hubbard Verio / NTT Randy Bush Verizon Dan
Currie XO John Curran
Cisco Fred Baker Juniper Ross Callon Lucent Reinh
ard Metz Karl Rauscher
FCC Kent Nilsson Harvard U. Scott
Bradner Mitretek Guerin Goldsmith Telcordia Ralph
Parker Visa Robert Neumann
5
Progress To Date

• Meetings,
• Dec 7, 2000 (Genuity, Burlington MA)
• Mar 7, 2001 (FCC)
• May 23, 2001 (Level 3, Broomfield, CO)
• Consensus on short term tasks
• Carrier Interconnection
• Statement encouraging publication of peering
  guidelines
• Outline and progress on interconnection paper
• Cooperation with 2.A2
• Testing Discussions

6
Carrier Interconnection / Peering Issue

• We have had discussions on SP interconnection and
  peering at all three meetings
• Consensus to publish a short statement
  encouraging service providers to publish their
  criteria for peering
• Goal is to foster transparency
• Cover letter and statement are attached
• Consensus to produce longer paper discussing
  interconnection issue
• Outline is attached

7

• To James Crowe
• The NRIC V Interoperability Focus Group (Focus
  Group 4) - has developed a consensus
  recommendation that it would like to place before
  the Network Reliability and Interoperability
  Council for consideration at its next meeting on
  June 26. The recommendation and statement,
  which are attached, request that the Council
  encourage Internet service providers, and
  especially the large "backbone" Internet
  providers that comprise the core of the modern
  Internet, to consider, consistent with their
  business practices, publication of their criteria
  for peering.
• More specifically, Focus Group 4 believes that
  this action will promote transparency and
  facilitate interoperability, especially with
  respect to new Internet service providers.
  Accordingly, we respectfully request that you
  place this recommendation before the Council at
  its next meeting and, if it is adopted, that the
  Council publish this recommendation.
• Sincerely, Scott Bradner, Ross Callon
  (co-chairs)

8

• NRIC Encourages Publication of Peering Criteria
• to Promote Transparency
•  
• Because no one provider directly connects a
  plurality of sites within the Internet,
  interconnection between providers is necessary.
  The form of interconnection known as "peering",
  in which Internet providers agree to exchange
  traffic for their respective customers but not
  for third parties, is commonly deployed and
  widely accepted.
• Internet providers do not and can not peer with
  all other Internet providers. They make conscious
  decisions as to which providers they will peer
  with, and under what business terms. In the
  United States, the decision to peer, or to
  decline to peer, is driven by market forces,
  rather than by government regulation. Moreover,
  there is no legal obligation to disclose these
  decisions or these terms.
•  
• (continued...)

9

• Over the past year, several of the largest
  Internet providers in the United States have
  voluntarily chosen to openly publish the basis on
  which they decide with whom they will peer. In
  the opinion of NRIC V, this has been a positive
  development, both for U.S. industry and for the
  global Internet community. It has significantly
  enhanced transparency of process in the industry.
  
• NRIC V encourages other Internet providers, and
  especially the large "backbone" Internet
  providers that comprise the core of the modern
  Internet, to consider, consistent with their
  business practices, publication of their criteria
  for peering.

10
White Paper on S.P. Interconnection

• White paper on Service Provider Interconnection
• Discusses issue
• Provide background for discussions of
  interconnection issues
• Progress to date
• Draft outline sent to focus group prior to our
  last meeting
• Outline discussed and edited in detail at FG4
  meeting
• We have some draft text
• Multiple participants have volunteered to produce
  text
• Next step
• Assemble draft text prior to next meeting
• Discuss and edit in detail

11
Service Provider Interconnection for Internet
Protocol (IP) Best Effort
Service NRIC V, Focus Group 4   1.
Introduction 1.1 Overview 1.2
Terminology   2. Background 2.1 Basic Data
Connectivity in the Internet 2.2 Service
Provider Interconnection Peering and Transit
2.3 Flexible Interconnection   3. Quality of
Interconnections   4. Potential Issues 4.1
Publishing Interconnection Guidelines 4.2
Issues to be Considered 4.3 Examples of
Criteria   5. References Appendix A Example
of Peering Guidelines
12
Cooperation with 2.A2

• Focus Group 2, working group 2.A2, has produced
  best practices for reliability in data networks
• Karl Rauscher gave a general overview to FG4
  3/2001
• FG4 went through BPs one-by-one at meeting 5/2001
• Results have been written up, distributed to FG4,
  and updated based on comments received
• Next step Relay to 2.A2

13
Testing

• FG4 has had two discussions on testing
• Presentation by D.Currie, R.Parker, and
  R.Neumann, 3/2001
• General discussion, 5/2001
• Strong agreement on the importance of testing
• Agreement
• There are many valid forms of testing
• There are many organizations involved in testing
• (including vendors and service providers)
• FG4 is reluctant to endorse any particular test
  group
• FG4 will produce a short draft summarizing
  conclusions to date
• For discussion at next FG4 meeting

14
Future Meeting Schedule

• July 24 in San Jose, CA (hosted by Cisco)
• Future meeting schedule
• September, 2001 in Boston
• Probably November or early December in DC
• Dates need to be set ASAP

15
Recommendations / Next Steps

• Continue to encourage participation
• Publish short statement on peering criteria
• Continue progress on white paper
• Plan to have the paper by October
• Is likely to be augmented over time
• Coordinate with other FGs as appropriate
• Short statement on testing
• Consider need for longer term efforts in this
  area