Subject: RE: IETF58 - Network Status

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:20:24 +0200

> 
> On this front...  the IETF is running into the same problem 
> as the airlines...
> being asked to do more work with fewer people while at the 
> same time charging
> the attendees more (who then expect MORE service for their 
> money).  Such is
> the times we live in.
> 

The good news for these of us using airlines services quite often is that airlines still perform better than the IETF network did last week :-)

Now, seriously and with all due respect and all the collegial understanding to the fellows who ran the network last week - Guys, you had a problem! For many people the network service they received were much worse than the service they received at the previous four or five IETF meting, or similar gatherings in the last couple of years. The folks who paid 500 USD registration fee expect you to face the problem, and come with solutions to avoid such problems at the next meetings. These solutions would better be something else than placing an upfront warning like 'Use card A and driver B - instead of card C and driver D' especially if C and D are quite widely deployed industry solutions. However, even this type of warning was not in place at the last meeting. People came with their standard equipment, that worked perfectly at many other events, and just could not do their work with the wireless network last week. 

Regards,

Dan

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:53:49 -0500

> The folks who paid 500 USD registration fee expect you to face the
> problem, and come with solutions to avoid such problems at the next
> meetings. 

Maybe that's the real problem - people think they are paying for the
wireless network as part of the conference fee, when the reality (as I
understand it) is that a substantial part of the cost of the wireless
network comes from sponsors, donors, and/or volunteers.

In other words, you get a lot more than what you pay for, but it's
hardly a surprise if the quality of free service varies widely.
Consistency costs money too.

Personally I think the registration fee is already too high, so I'd be
very reluctant to pay a substantially higher fee in order to get better 
wireless connectivity in the meeting rooms.  Those who really need a
stable network can still plug in at the terminal room.   

While wireless could possibly have been better than it was last week, the
technology doesn't yet seem to be of the quality/maturity that 1200
people can demand free, production-quality wireless service when they're
densely crammed into a few meeting rooms (in Minneapolis, most of which
were really a single large meeting room partitioned with fuzzy walls). 
Maybe in a few years with some combination of phased-array antennas,
802.11a, more wisdom about placement, and smarter host software things
will be better.

It never ceases to amaze me when people who claim to be network
engineers can't tolerate a week on the bleeding edge.  What ever
happened to eating your own dogfood?

Keith

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:13:09 -0800

Keith,

>network comes from sponsors, donors, and/or volunteers.

The network (i.e., internet connectivity, wired infrastructure, and 
wireless) is the responsibility of the local host or in the case of the 
no-host meetings (like Minneapolis) the IETF secretariat.  So I think at 
least in the case of the no-host meetings we are paying for the network 
(wired and wireless).  My understanding is that even with lots of donations 
of services, the network is an expensive undertaking.  Also, from our 
experience hosting the Atlanta meeting I suspect that not having a terminal 
room and only having wireless access probably saves money.

Bob

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:53:09 +0100

I have a similar opinion ...

I believe that the terminal room, with wired connectivity, is no longer needed. But the terminal room, as a place with tables, is very convenient (but still using wireless).

We can save in the cost of the wired network, and the cost of the security to keep that room "surveilled". The NOC can have a different room, with a key, and even an IP camera looking at the terminal room if is considered that a minimum surveillance is still useful/needed (I don't think anyone want to take out the printer, but just in case !).

An alternative is to ask for some tables in all the meeting rooms. This was actually quite useful in Vienna.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Hinden" <[email-masked]>
To: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: IETF58 - Network Status

> room and only having wireless access probably saves money.

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:39:03 +0100

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:53:09 +0100 "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I believe that the terminal room, with wired connectivity, is no
> longer needed. But the terminal room, as a place with tables, is very

I disagree here. Having a _stable_ (fallback) network access, especially when
shifting around larger files, is very convenient. I'm not in favor of abandoning
the fixed net access (except if cutting down the costs require it).

Regards,
 Roland

---

From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:17:52 -0800 (PST)

There is a difference between having a couple of hubs in the middle of a
table with a box of patch cables nearby (or bring your own) versus the
current carefully laid cable bundles with a drop at each seat. It's mostly
a question of what gets used or not. I remember not so long ago we had
LocalTalk connectors at every seat, but then again this was my 51st IETF
and it all starts to blur after a while :-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:27:12 +0100

The point is that WLAN should be warranted to work, first.

Actually, in my last 2-3 IETFs (my be more, but not sure), I never used the wired connectivity. The WLAN in the terminal room was excellent.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:45:22 -0500

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 04:39:03PM +0100, Roland Bless allegedly wrote:
> I disagree here. Having a _stable_ (fallback) network access,
> especially when shifting around larger files, is very convenient. I'm
> not in favor of abandoning the fixed net access (except if cutting
> down the costs require it).

Fairly soon, all relevant hotels will offer their own wireless access,
as well as connectivity from your room, and from suites, as a fallback.
Also, in a meeting, one can pass CDs or USB thingies around.  Risk of
serious long-term wireless outage is low.  How much are you willing to
pay in order to reduce risk to 0% and to have your fallback network be
nice and convenient?  IETF finances are not in good shape.

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:23:52 +0100

I already indicated before: 100-150 Euros more is not a big issue.

My time retrying my connection hundreds of times during a week cost much more and my productivity and concentration goes low. I'm sure is the same for a lot of people !

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:41:30 +0000

> nice and convenient?  IETF finances are not in good shape.

But hotels will not be geared up for 1000 WLAN laptops...

Tim

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:34:46 -0800 (PST)

the hhonors ap's at the hilton were nat-ed and behind a business
cable-modem that's about average for the hotels I've seen... you won't
find to many hotels with ds3's and /19s worth of address-space. if
enough peopel fall back on the hotel you'll melt it...

joelja

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       [email-masked]    
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:46:41 -0500

> as well as connectivity from your room, and from suites, as a

if your hotel is a few blocks (or habitrail tunnels) away then the
overhead of obtaining fallback access (from your room, or if limited to
registered guests) becomes fairly significant...

also I seriously doubt that most hotels will provision their "fallback"
networks adequately "fairly soon".

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:42:41 -0500

> longer needed.

My experience last week was otherwise.  There were times at which the only
reliable connectivity I could find (well, in a smoke-free area, anyway)
was via a wired network connection.  Or at least after trying to find a
wireless connection a 3 or 4 places, I was glad to be able to "give up"
and just go to the terminal room.  Of course the terminal room is much more
accessible these days now that wireless in the meeting rooms/hallways 
can relieve some of the need to provide space and cables for everyone...

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:48:51 -0500

> I already indicated before: 100-150 Euros more is not a big issue.

I strongly and emphatically disagree, and I strongly object to attempts to
use of increased meeting feeds to discourage some parties from participating
at IETF.  Basically this kind of fee increase is completely and absolutely
unacceptable.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:03:34 +0100

> at IETF.  Basically this kind of fee increase is completely and 

Especially considering the fact that based on the budget for 2003 (see 
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/budget-2003.html ) the costs per 
attendee are less than 300 dollars, even at the lower than projected 
attendance.

Maybe this would be a good time to explain what the IETF needs a 9.33 
person secretariat for, and why the secretariat must be entirely funded 
by meeting fees.

As for the network: Vienna has shown that it's possible to do better. 
At the same time, with 1000+ people in a room performance isn't going 
to be great. Poor network performance during plenaries and other 
crowded sessions isn't the end of the world as long as the network 
functions well elsewhere.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:44:05 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Iljitsch van Beijn
>person secretariat for, and why the secretariat must be entirely funded 

Y'know, IETFers always have fun comparing the size of our secretariat 
to those from other standards organizations.  The phrase "order of 
magnitude smaller" comes to mind.

The Secretariat handles I-D processing, meeting planning, IESG 
telechats, software development and systems administration to support all
that, and much, much more.
>As for the network: Vienna has shown that it's possible to do better. 

There were at least two major external items that were different this 
time:  nasty, aggressive worms, both inside and outside -- *why* should 
anyone clueful enough to attend an IETF meeting not know how to run AV 
software, at the very least! -- and "helpful" operating systems that 
think that going into IBSS mode when they don't hear a base station is 
"user-friendly".

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:05:31 +0100

> that, and much, much more.

I have no first-hand information on how much time this costs, but 9.33 
people for all of this seems like a lot. I-Ds could be automated, and I 
gather the actual work in getting meetings off the ground is handled by 
an outside bureau anyway.

> time:  nasty, aggressive worms, both inside and outside

Ok, so we should make sure that incoming access to the network has 
wormfilters and the access points must support blocking certain mac 
addresses from connecting to the network. Wouldn't it make sense to 
require people to register their mac address, by the way? This should 
make tracking down misbehaving hosts much easier.

> and "helpful" operating systems that

I think part of the blame should go to the access points that kept 
disappearing. Someone told me this was because the AP transmitters were 
set to just 1 mw. If this is true, it was obviously a very big mistake.

As long as we're bitching about the network: would it be possible to 
start doing some unicast streaming of sessions in the future? Access to 
multicast hasn't gotten significantly better the past decade, but 
streaming over unicast is now routine as the codecs are so much better 
these days, as is typical access bandwidth. I'll happily take 40 kbps 
MPEG-4 audio only; the video is so badly out of sync that it is 
unwatchable most of the time anyway.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:13:44 -0800 (PST)

> unwatchable most of the time anyway.

if you want to show up with encoders I'll give you an audio/video feed... 
then you can baby your boxes and not go to any meeting you want all week 
just like me. I would be able lot cheaper and less work if the multicast 
folks just paid to go to the meeting like normal people.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:38:12 -0800

> I have no first-hand information on how much time this costs

"So I'll dream up what I think the right number of people should be!"

> set to just 1 mw. If this is true, it was obviously a very big mistake.

Oh really?!  Please explain why.  Your words strike me as those of a 
volunteer for South Korea.  Do I have that about right?

> unwatchable most of the time anyway.

Will you happily pay for the privilege?

Eliot

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:02:54 -0500

>Will you happily pay for the privilege?

I have been offering that for several years. I've stood up at Plenaries and 
asked too. If the IETF needs funds, then a remote-attendance fee makes 
sense. However, if there's going to be a remote-attendance fee, there needs 
to be live streaming that works on networks where multicast isn't 
available, and there'd need to be coverage from ALL rooms. (Yes, it'd be 
nice if I could get multicast in my office, but it's just not available at 
present on the only broadband provider covering my area).

Much as I'd like to make all meetings, this just isn't possible. Using only 
meeting attendance fees to fund all activities, such as I-D processing, 
seems wrong. I use those services, even if I don't attend all meetings. So 
maybe the question is wider than meeting fees and remote attendance fees.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:58:29 -0500 (EST)

Umm, having worked for a different standards organization (the OSF and The
Open Group) and being somewhat familiar with their current operations,
now, I can say the following:

Back when I worked at OSF, it had about 325 employees and some additional
number of sabbaticals and contractors not counted as employees, spread
across 3 continents.  Of course, it actually implemented or integrated
quite a bit of code, or specified and supervised the work done at other
companies, as well as evaluated a ton-load more code from other companies.
Having had a key to the technoloy submission room, I can attest to the
vastness of these submissions.  That was then.  Later I was a consultant
to The Open Group as it merged the activities of X/Open and the X
Consortium and downsized to its current form.  The current operations are
much, much leaner.  But they do not generally develop code any more,
except in the Research group, which is also much, much smaller.  Unlike
the IETF, The Open Group is involved in the administration of technology
licencing and collection of royalties and all that is involved with that.
There are probably other differences that I am not aware of.

One may be fond of the phrase 'order of magnitude smaller', but I don't
think it bears close scrutiny.  I don't want to say that these 9.33 people
in the secretariate aren't doing their job, or that they aren't necessary.
I don't have sufficient information to judge that. That is really the task
of the executive director.  But how they are organized, what their work
is, and what, if anything, can be automated, does seem to be a reasonable
question.  Platitudes are not sufficient.

However, I would repeat a previous criticism of the IETF operations as
being sloppy on the administration of its process, particularly in regard
to the execution of the IETF process rules regarding when and how
standards proposals are to be moved through the process or dropped.
There could be many reasons for this particular failure. It could be the
IETF is understaffed, it could be the IETF is simply poorly organized, or
it could be something else.  But it is in our mutual interest to find out,
and correct the problem.

		--Dean

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:38:16 +0100

On 19-nov-03, at 1:38, Eliot Lear wrote:

>> disappearing. Someone told me this was because the AP transmitters 
>> were set to just 1 mw. If this is true, it was obviously a very big 
>> mistake.

> Oh really?!  Please explain why.

Ok, maybe not so obvious then...

Under the best of circumstances dialing down the transmit power neither 
helps nor hurts as both the signal we're interested in and the noise 
generated by signals we're not interested in become weaker so the 
signal to noise ratio remains the same. So even under ideal conditions 
there is no reason to do this. However, in practice the conditions 
aren't ideal, as receiver sensitivity remains the same, and AFAIK 
802.11b has no mechanisms to make clients lower their signal output. 
And even if it had, this presumably wouldn't apply to rogue p2p 
networks.

So the net effect of lowering access point transmit levels is that 
interference from clients goes way up, as a 30 mw client at 15 meters 
(50 ft) is received stronger than a 1 mw AP at 3 meters (assuming the 
antennas are equivalent). This means that a client sitting in one of 
these artificially shrunk access point service areas can easily 
interfere with the transmissions of another access point further away 
using the same channel. And when a client doesn't see its access point 
anymore because of some temporary problem (someone walking through the 
line of sight or something) it is almost guaranteed that if there are 
any rogue p2p networks, these will have a stronger signal as seen from 
the client than the remaining access points.

> Your words strike me as those of a volunteer for South Korea.  Do I 
> have that about right?

I'd be happy to volunteer but I don't think I'll attend IETF59 as I've 
attended three of the last four meetings which is already more than I 
planned.

>> I'll happily take 40 kbps MPEG-4 audio only; the video is so badly 
>> out of sync that it is unwatchable most of the time anyway.

> Will you happily pay for the privilege?

So how much would this have to cost? As things are now, getting 
multicast service is more expensive for me than attending the meetings 
in person...

---

From: "Chirayu Patel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:04:36 +0530

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:38:12 -0800, "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]> said:

> > start doing some unicast streaming of sessions in the future? Access
> > to multicast hasn't gotten significantly better the past decade, but
> > streaming over unicast is now routine as the codecs are so much
> > better these days, as is typical access bandwidth. I'll happily take
> > 40 kbps MPEG-4 audio only; the video is so badly out of sync that it
> > is unwatchable most of the time anyway.
>

FWIW, I would not mind paying.

My ISP has been filtering ICMP for the past 6 months, and it was a pain
just getting to the right person who knows the reason. I don't think I
want to even try talking to them about multicast......

CP

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:39:46 -0800

>  I already indicated before: 100-150 Euros more is not a big issue.

Other standards bodies charge very similar amounts for meetings, and 
also have very hefty annual membership fees.  The IETF is in a very 
unusual position, as far as standards bodies goes, in that we strive 
for complete openness and inclusiveness as opposed to corporate 
membership.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
In the beginning was the word...and it was the wrong length.
                 --Bob Barton (Burroughs computer architect)