JANET Midlands Regional User Group
Draft Minutes of the 52nd Meeting
Present:
Chris Bayliss (CB) The
Alan Benson
(AB)
Max Caines (MC)
Neil Faver (NF)
James Higham (JH)
Andy Jack
(Chair) (AJ)
Andy Morris
(AM)
Rodney Tillottson (RT) UKERNA
1. Apologies
for Absence
1.1. Robert Prabucki, David Roberts.
2. Minutes
of previous meeting.
2.1. Present : Niel Favar
should be Neil Faver, Robert Prabuck
should be Robert Prabucki.
3. Matters
Arising
3.1. None
4. Any
items to be added to Agenda
4.1. None
5. Future
status of MIDJUG and position of Chair
5.1. AJ reported a discussion at the last JNUG
meeting about the future status of the Regional User Groups. In the light of UKERNA’s move towards using regional MANs
to provide service, the question of whether to move towards MAN based user and technical
groups had arisen. AJ proposed 3 possible alternative ways forward;
·
Disband MidJUG and form MAN based groups
·
Remain
unchanged
·
JNUG
attendees are drawn for MAN representative groups, if this is deemed
appropriate by UKERNA.
MC added a fourth alternative, to disband MidJUG and expanding the scope and role of the Midlands
Networking Forum.
MC went on to ask about the future of JNUG itself and who would make that decision. NF felt that there was a need for MidJUG and JNUG as a forum to report views and issues back to UKERNA. CB agreed and added JNUG’s role to report views and issues back to JISC. RT reported JISC’s support for JNUG as a group and that the contract between UKERNA and JISC provides for JNUG and a structured method for reporting. CB thought that a MAN based group would likely lose the user focus which is important in the current structure. AM stressed the need for the RSCs to promote the regional user groups and the opportunity to use them as a bridge between the HE and FE sectors.
5.2. AJ raised the question of the vacant position
of MidJUG chair. AJ reported that there was still no
news on Tim Clark’s absence, but that the position of chair has now been
unfilled for nearly a year. He suggested that October’s MidJUG
meeting should hold an election for chair and resolve the issue. RT concurred
with this view. AJ asked for nominations to midjug@jiscmail.ac.uk.
RT expressed his opinion of the positive benefits of both the regional users groups in general and of MidJUG specifically.
6. Reports
6.1. UKERNA Spring Report
6.1.1. Item 2.1.1.1 : AJ noted that there was no timescale for bringing the post 16 learning and skills sector onto JANET. RT could not provide any information on this. JH reported 16 specialist colleges in the East Midlands Region. JH confirmed that the workload of connecting these sites would be borne by the RSCs in response to a question from NF.
6.1.2. Item
2.2.2 : RT informed the meeting about the UKERNA
website now holding the most accurate information regarding the connections
across the transatlantic. Currently traffic to ESNet
is being routed through a connection provided at short notice by MCIWorldcom through Telehouse.
The route previously provided by KPNQwest is no
longer in use. NF asked if this provision was through 2 1GB pipes as
previously. RT thought not and did not know the actual bandwidth available. RT
noted the hard work put in under pressure by Tim Kidd and others to get a
replacement service as such short notice. The meeting echoed this and expressed
their thanks to all concerned. RT noted that the contract with KPNQwest involved an upfront payment of 5% with the
remainder paid monthly, ensuring minimal financial loss to UKERNA. RT also
noted that the Teleglobe links to
6.1.3. Item
2.2.4 : AJ reported that a number of members of
6.1.4. Item 2.4.2 : AJ commented on the continuing good service provided by Netsight, but noted an outage since the last MidJUG. RT reported a compromise of one of the boxes providing the service. The machine was returned to UKERNA HQ where the problem was identified. AJ thought that return to base fixing is rather antiquated in our environment. RT informed that group that the decision was made to turn off the equipment, and that forensic investigation may have been required, so the computer was retrieved. Once the box had been examined the other Netsight boxes were examined and declared secure. RT also informed the group that an enhancement of the Netsight service is planned.
6.1.5. Item 2.4.3 : AM noted that the Managed Router Service has ceased being offered. He asked if there were plans for a son of MRS? RT had no information but would find out. AJ expressed the concern of EMMAN management that UKERNA were going to donate the existing routers to the colleges in which they were installed. These colleges may not know how to manage or maintain these, and who may have no budget for their hardware maintenance. He suggested that it may be better to donate them to the MANs who are better able to handle them. MC reported that the transfer had been postponed. AJ also raised the problems of service delimitation and responsibilities that the routers would cause. AM asked that the issue be raised within UKERNA.
6.1.6. Items 2.6.4 & 2.6.5 : AJ thought that the remaining users of the X.29 conversion service had been at Loughborough. RT reported that bother services would be shut between now and Dec 31st, although no specific date was available, No users were unable to use some alternative method, and that users were being contacted to explain the situation where possible. RT concluded that little impact was expected from the closing of the services.
6.1.7. Item 4.1.1 :AJ reported that the EMMAN technical group had discussed a suggestion from Andrew Cormack that filtering traffic for security reasons (e.g. blocking SNMP) could be in place at MAN level rather than (or as well as) institutional level. The EMMAN meeting had thought that this was a good idea and that the principle needed establishing at management level of the organisations involved. The EMMAN meeting had raised the question of whether MANs should interfere with free and full access to JANET, for example SNMP traffic, however. NF agreeded with the EMMAN meeting that this was a good idea, but RT raised the problem that if the MAN blocks the traffic then the sites on the MAN may not feel the need to, creating vulnerabilities within the MAN. He suggested entities within the MAN network should also be protected. MC reported that none of this was being done within MidMAN. RT thought that customer sites should be encouraged to protect themselves and that the MANs should also protect themselves. He also suggested that CERT should provide some comment and guidance on the subject, with specific reference to where it’s essential and where it’s desirable.
6.1.8. Item 4.1.1 : CB reported having received CERT tickets with little or no information on them. He asked what sites are expected to do in these circumstances. RT reported that these tickets are usually being forwarded from another CERT or Institution and that often CERT themselves had received no information.RT asked that sites make best effort to investigate the incident and then report back to CERT with what, if any, action has been taken. RT noted that no response to these tickets causes CERT to believe the information didn’t arrive, and therefore to retry until some confirmation is received back. Item 5.3.1.3 : AJ asked if the experience of the WVN was to be shared with the larger community outside Wales, especially in the light of QoS issues over the backbone. MC reported good experiences with Video over IP between Shrewsbury College and Bradford University.
6.1.9. Item 6.2 : AJ asked RT for comments. RT had little information but felt that most of the changes would be at Board level. He had not information as to what operational effect this review would have. AJ informed the meeting he would raise the issue at JNUG.
6.2. JNUG Meeting 6th Feb 2002
6.2.1. Item 4.3 & 4.4 : AJ reported that a discussion about the reform of the Regional User Groups was inconclusive and that representatives were raising the issue at the groups themselves. See item 5.1 above.
6.2.2. Maters Arising 14.7 : AJ raised a question surrounding CERT’s ability and willingness to terminate connections. RT reported that CERT are charged with the authority to disconnect any site or organisation, including MANs, summarily without reference to anyone. However, action sanction would only be taken as a last resort when no alternative was available, to protect the service to other connections.
6.2.3. Item 9 : The meeting noted that the JISC Strategic Workshop on Charging had not reported a conclusion. The meeting also noted that Robin Arrak had not provided a response to a question by David Roberts at Networkshop. Given that the current charging strategy was last years charge + 35% the meeting was keen to know what the future held, whether this would be usage based, and how this was to be measured. AJ noted that Brian Gilmore had asked how charging filters down to affect the behaviour of users. AJ thought that it didn’t, but it did affect usage at a departmental and institutional level. The meeting then progressed to a discussion about acceptable usage of JANET and of the JANET AUP. RT concluded the discussion by reporting that he had no information on the issue that was not already known and part of the debate.
6.2.4. Item 12.2 : AJ asked if any developments had come out of the questionnaire.
6.2.5. JISCMail : The meeting commented that if would be nice if multiple copies of the same email to the same person could be delivered just once.
6.2.6. Item 14.8 : The meeting agreed with SWJNUG’s comment that it would be nice if Netsight statistics could be provided to MANs.
7.
Local
Issues.
7.1. AB noted that there appeared to
have been some noteworthy problems surrounding a router at
7.2. AJ reported that BT had
disconnected the line to
7.3. AM noted that the links to
8.
Service
Issues
8.1. The meeting acknowledged good service from SuperJANET4 since the last meeting.
9.
Forthcoming
JNUG.
9.1. The meeting wanted the issues of the FE College Routers, MAN level filtering and the visability of transatlantic traffic raising.
9.2. The following report will be taken to the JNUG meeting by acting MidJUG chair, AJ.
REPORT FROM THE MIDLANDS JANET USER GROUP
MIDJUG met on
The possibility
of dissolving the group was discussed, either in favour of new user groups for
the two regional MANs, or requesting that existing
groups, such as the EMMAN Technical Group, send representatives to JNUG. There
is currently no equivalent MidMAN technical group and
it was felt that MIDJUG still has a role. However, the position of chair has
still not been clarified, so it was decided to hold an election for the chair
at the next meeting in October. If there are no candidates, the group will probably
fold as recent meetings have been poorly attended.
The question of
ownership of routers sited in FE colleges was raised. It is believed that
UKERNA intend to give these routers to the colleges when MANs
take responsibility for the connections. It was thought that this was
undesirable, at least in some cases, and ownership and control should be
offered to the MANs.
Following a query
from Andrew Cormack, the possibility of MANs blocking certain types of traffic, such as SNMP, at
the router connecting the MAN to JANET was discussed. It has been suggested
that EMMAN might do this, once it has been authorised. MidMAN don't filter traffic
and have not as yet considered doing so.
The group agreed
with SWJRUG's suggestion that publicly available
stats of the usage of transatlantic links would be very useful. (Item 14.8 of
JNUG Minutes)
General
satisfaction with the JANET service and appreciation of the lack of disruption
caused by the recent bankruptcies was expressed.
Andy Jack
Acting Chair,
MIDJUG
10.
AOB
10.1. RT reported that RIPE were offering a service which would report on one way timings for traffic between 2 fixed points across the internet. The service currently has a €3000 joining fee with €3000 annual rental. The service was currently available to 70 locations and seemed to be performing well.
10.2. AM asked if anyone within JANET had taken up the IPV6 service. The meeting thought that the only people using IPV6 were the test sites at Southampton and Lancaster. AM asked if UKERNA could provide a speaker for an event. RT suggested making the request to Jeremy Sharp.
11.
Date and
Venue of Next Meeting.
11.1. The
next meeting will take place at
The meeting closed at