NRIC Minutes August 2000

Minutes of the First Meeting of the
Network Reliability and Interoperability Council V

Summary of Meeting

August 23, 2000

Kent Nilsson, the Council's Designated Federal Officer, opened the meeting at 10:00a.m. by welcoming the members and introducing Jack Waters of Level 3 Communications, the Vice-Chairman of the Council, who provided brief introductory remarks. Mr. Waters stated that the Council was seeking to conclude the work of the Y2K Focus Group, as well as hear progress reports from the other three groups. He said that Focus Group 2 was intended to look at the circuit networks and the packet networks and bridge traditional best practices. He noted that a lot of work would be presented by Focus Group 3, which had been renamed "The Wireline Network Spectral Integrity Group" and was very xDSL focused. He said that the newest group, Focus Group 4, Network Interoperability, intended to focus on circuit to packet and packet to packet interoperability. He said he hoped that the group would consider data networks, both ATM and Frame Relay and also IP networks. He said the first job of Focus Group 4 would be to determine what the group could measure. The group would also need to deal with some security issues. It would also need to consider the rate of change of the underlying technologies, i.e., router technologies, which doubles every 48 months.

In addition to Kent Nilsson, the following FCC personnel were in attendance: Commissioner Michael K. Powell Dale Hatfield, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology Douglas Sicker, Chief, Network Technology Division

Mr. Waters then asked the members to proceed around the table introducing themselves. Those present included Tricia Paoletta, Vice President, Government Relations, Level 3 Communications, Andrew Dugan, Level 3 Director of Global Architecture, Dale Hatfield, of the FCC, Ruth Michalecki of the University of Nebraska, Loren Sprouse of Sprint, Ed Eckert and Jonathan Homa of Nortel, Peter Lessek of Lucent, Jack Goldberg of the Connecticut DPUC/NARUC, Mark Neibert of Lockheed-Martin, Larry Hurtado of Elastic Networks, Pete Fonash of the National Communications System, Mark Wegleitner of Verizon Communications, Art Reilly of Cisco Systems, Mary Retka of Qwest, Paul Hart of USTA, Harold Salters of PCIA, P.J. Aduskevicz of AT&T, John McHugh of OPASTCO, Alexander Netchvolodoff of Cox, Dan Taylor of SBC, Andy Scott of NCTA, Phil Kyees of Paradyne, and Doug Sicker of the FCC.

Mr. Waters then introduced Mr. Andrew Dugan, Level 3 Communications as Steering Committee Vice-Chairman, who provided an update on the Council organization. Mr. Waters stated that the Steering Committee was organized in four major Focus Groups. These included Focus Group 1, Y2K, headed by John Pasqua of ATT; and Focus Group 2, Network Reliability, headed by Brian Moir of ICA. Focus Group 2 was subdivided into subcommittees A1, Best Practices, headed by Rick Harrison of Telcordia; A2, Best Practices Packet Switching, headed by Karl Rauscher of Lucent; B1, Data Reporting and Analysis, headed by P.J. Aduskevicz of AT&T; and B2, Data Reporting and Analysis for Packet Switching, headed by Michael Caloyannides of Mitretek Systems. The other two Focus Groups included Focus Group 3, Wireline Network Spectral Integrity, headed by Ed Eckert of Nortel; and Focus Group 4, Interoperability, headed by Ross Callon of Juniper and Jim Graham of SBC. Mr. Dugan asked that any Council members wishing to volunteer anyone from their organization to serve on the Focus Groups contact Tricia Paoletta at 703-762-0147 (tricia.paoletta@level3.com) or himself at 720-888-2983 (andrew.dugan@level3.com).

Mr. Waters then introduced P.J. Aduskevicz of AT&T who provided a report from Focus Group 1 on Y2K activities. The report highlighted the Y2K and Leap Year transitions, discussed the Y2K on-going survey, discussed some lessons learned, and suggested some final recommendations. The report identified no major problems across major industry groups for both the Y2K transition and the Leap Year transition. Ms. Aduskevicz said the industry and the NRIC are to be congratulated for this success. This success appeared to be the result of six major factors: (1) many potential problems were fixed in advance; (2) many potential problems had been exaggerated; (3) many potentially faulty systems were turned off; (4) some systems had lower load and others had higher degree of support than anticipated or normal; (5) some problems were de-emphasized, ignored or not reported; and (6) some problems occurred in the Third World where there was less dependency on computer technology. Lessons learned from Y2K efforts and success indicate that management oversight and involvement were critical along with central coordination and distributed execution of remedial actions. Additionally, interoperability testing, pervasive communications, and business continuity (contingency) planning were critical in achieving the final successful results. Results from an on-going survey of problems will be forwarded to the NRIC for discussion at the next meeting. Summary recommendations to be provided in the written report include the need for regression testing for independent verification of computer systems and follow-up activities to Y2K and future projects that can benefit from the Y2k experience. A final written report that will close out the activities of the Y2K Focus Group will be presented at the next NRIC meeting.

Mr. Waters thanked Ms. Aduskevicz and introduced Mr. Karl Rauscher of Lucent Technologies who provided a status report for the Packet Switching Best Practices subcommittee on the development of its mission statement, deliverables, timeline, recruiting, and next steps for subcommittee A2, Packet Switching Best Practices, of Focus Group 2, Network Reliability. Mr. Rauscher stated that the work of his subcommittee, in contrast to that of the Y2K group, was just beginning. He said that the NRIC V Charter had asked the Packet Switching Best Practices subcommittee to provide recommendations on packet switched telecommunications network services best practices gleaned from surveys and refinements of existing best practices as well as determining new best practices, as appropriate. Mr. Rauscher said the subcommittee will conduct a survey to evaluate the deployment of known best practices within the industry and make recommendations for improving that deployment. Mr. Rauscher said that best practices would be developed from a new outage reporting trial to be described by Ms. Aduskevicz in the next presentation. Mr. Rauscher said that many experts believe major outages in the nation's packet switched networks are likely, and that several relevant outages had already been reported for study. The subcommittee's efforts will focus on wireless as well as wireline packet network best practices. Mr. Rauscher projected that the efforts of his subcommittee will take 18 months to complete. The subcommittee would aim for team membership that will demonstrate a level of expertise and representation that will inspire confidence in the findings of the subcommittee. A recruiting letter to various organizations (which included NRIC and other organizations) had been transmitted with the help of Marsha Ball and Lisa King of Level 3 Communications. A review of NRIC IV best practices is currently under way and is being accompanied with an effort to develop a statement of the critical characteristics of packet switched networks.

Mr. Waters thanked Mr. Rauscher and reintroduced P.J. Aduskevicz to report on the development of a mission statement, deliverables, timeline, recruiting, and next steps for subcommittee B1, Data Reporting and Analysis, of Focus Group 2, Network Reliability. Ms. Aduskevicz stated that the subcommittee was chartered to implement a one year voluntary outage reporting trial by data network service providers (ISPs, CMRS, satellite, cable, and data networking service providers) of outages that were determined to have a significant public impact but that do not fall under the present Section 63.100 telephone outage reporting requirements. Ms. Aduskevicz said that the goal of the trial is to provide a basis for recommendations for data network outage reporting best practices. A letter has been transmitted to industry representatives with a template for reporting, and data collection for the trial is due to begin on September 1. The trial period is to extend until December 2001. Plans to protect proprietary information are being developed; and a FOIA exemption is also being pursued. The committee will review existing wireline reporting procedures as a baseline for wireless systems.

In addition to discussing the voluntary trial, Ms. Aduskevicz summarized the current first quarter of wireline outages reported pursuant to Section 63.100 of the Commission's Rules. She invited those interested in the second quarter report, which was not yet final, to attend the NRSC meeting on August 31st at which that report would be made public. In respect to the first quarter outages, Ms. Aduskevicz noted especially increases in central office power and DCS outages, increasing instances of outages caused by procedural errors, decreasing common channel signaling outages, and an increasing trend in facility outages. Ms. Aduskevicz concluded by calling for questions.

Mr. Waters asked if the subcommittee would make known which industry segments respond positively to the voluntary trial invitation letters. Ms. Aduskevicz stated that it would be done insofar as it could be done without disclosing proprietary information. Ms Adjuskevicz was asked if the NRSC had found any correlation between the severity of state one-call legislation and facilities outages. Ms. Aduskevicz said an informal study had found a correlation between the presence or absence of one-call legislation in States and the incidence of facilities outages in those States. Mr. Sicker asked if the power outages had a single cause. Ms. Aduskevizc said they did not.

Mr. Waters then introduced Ed Eckert of Nortel, to provide a status report on the charter, deliverables, timeline, recruiting, and next steps for Focus Group 3, Wireline Network Spectral Integrity. Mr. Eckert said the group had so far had four days of face-to-face meetings. He said the group had developed e-mail guidelines and other working procedures. The group had divided its task into seven priority areas. Mr. Eckert said the purpose of the Focus Group was to provide recommendations that would ensure the integrity of co-existing services in wireline public telecommunications networks, facilitate wide-spread and unencumbered deployment of xDSL and associated wireline high-speed access technologies, and encourage a network architecture and technology evolution that safeguards the integrity of the wireline public telecommunications networks while maximizing capacity, availability and through-put in an unbundled competitive environment. Mr. Eckert said the Focus Group has two subcommittees that include subject matter experts from all industry segments, including service providers, equipment suppliers, industry leaders and members of the FCC. The first subcommittee is the Spectrum Management subcommittee, which will recommend spectrum management processes within the wireline network that will facilitate competition among providers and technologies. The second subcommittee, Spectrum Compatibility, will provide recommendations concerning technical standards and facilitate the rapid deployment of xDSL and associated technologies. The FCC in Docket No. 99-355 and in other dockets has asked Mr. Eckert's Focus Group to report on new spectrum technology compatibility in the public standards arena. That Focus Group is working closely with a T1 subcommittee (subcommittee T1E1) which is a working group of ANSI, to help provide recommendations. T1E1 considered a document on wireline network spectral management last week at a meeting in Vancouver that was attended by the Focus Group. The document received 35 approvals and 8 disapprovals. The disapprovals largely resulted from the fact that the document left repeater and remotely deployed frequency systems "under study." Some of the T1A1 members believe these systems have the most potential for significant degradation in the loop plant and need to be included now. They were left out of the document because of the complexities of these systems and the consequent difficulties of reaching agreement about them. Two hundred and eighty-five comments were received, of which T1A1 has resolved 200. T1A1 will meet again in October to resolve the remainder. Rapid resolution of this issue appears to be the unanimous goal of the committee members; none of the participants seems to wish to obstruct the development of an appropriate standard.

Mr. Ekert expressed the recommendation of Focus Group 3 as follows:

Recommendation #1: Topic - New Technology, Frequency Planning

Background & Key Learnings:

Spectrum Management is key to preserving wireline network spectral integrity for current & future services.
For frequencies below 1.1 MHz, the draft Spectrum Management standard prepared by T1E1 provides guidelines for deployment of DSL systems.
It is anticipated that FG3 will provide additional recommendations on the consistent implementation of this standard when it is approved.
Above 1.1 MHz, Frequency Division Duplexing (separation of upstream and downstream transmission frequencies) has been agreed to be used by the industry. A single plan, defining the individual upstream and downstream frequency bands is essential to protect current & future wireline network integrity.

Recommendations for frequencies from 1.1 MHz to 12 MHz:

T1E1 has selected a single band plan (known as FSAN 998) for frequencies from 0.138 to 12 MHz for VDSL draft trial use standards, after substantial efforts to optimize it for multiple service types. FG3 therefore recommends that this good work be recognized and supported by the FCC as the only band plan for use in the United States.
Frequency agile technologies may deviate from this plan if they continuously monitor and default to this plan if they are crosstalk coupled to technologies adhering to the plan.
FG3 further recommends that T1E1 include the FSAN 998 band plan in the next version of the SM standard for protecting systems using the frequencies 1.1 MHz to 12 MHz from harm.

Expected means and timing of implementation: The FCC should recognize these recommendations in the next Report & Order in the Advanced Services docket (98-147).

Recommendation #2: Topic - Ingress/Egress Issues; In-premises wireline transmitters

Background & Key Learnings:

Signals from home networking systems sharing the public network connected home wiring can leak into the network, which can potentially impact network based services.
VDSL will utilize frequencies from 0.138 MHz to 12 MHz.
HomePNA (G.pnt.f) systems on phone lines use frequencies from 5.5 MHz to 10 MHz.
FCC Part 68 rules for out-of-band signal power of network-connected CPE only apply up to 6 MHz.

Recommendation: With respect to isolation devices, FG3 recommends that:

Open standards development organizations (T1E1/TR41) develop technical requirements for isolation devices that isolate in-premises networking signals (e.g. G.pnt.f) from the public network.
The devices allow network signals to pass into the premises for frequencies up to approximately 5 MHz.
The isolation devices be customer installable.
The use of isolation devices for in-premises systems operating above 6 MHz be mandated.

Expected means and timing of implementation: FCC should recognize these recommendations in the next appropriate Report & Order.

Recommendation #3: Topic - Equipment Registration, Application of Part 68 to xDSL TU-R(Customer Located Equipment)

Background & Key Learnings:

FCC Part 68 Rules are for registration of Customer Premises Equipment to prevent harm to the network.
Current Part 68 Rules and/or Form 730 did not anticipate, and do not adequately address, the customer connected equipment used for advanced services, such as xDSL technologies.

Recommendation:

FCC Part 68 to be updated to address these needs via the responsible Technical Standards Development Organizations (TIA TR41 and Committee T1 TSC T1E1) on a fast track.
"Part 68 Streamlining" in CC Docket 99-216 should be expedited in order to promulgate a system that will ensure that rules can keep pace with technology development.

Expected means and timing of implementation:

FCC should provide rapid decision on CC Docket 99-216, with immediate assignment of a priority work item to ensure inclusion of xDSL Remote Transceiver Units in Part 68.

Recommendation #4: Topic - Intermediate TU Issues

Background & Key Learnings:

Some loop transmission system technologies can be deployed in a manner that places Transceiver Unit (TU) devices as intermediate points between the Central Office (CO) and Customer Interface (CI), which substantially increases the likelihood of crosstalk interference.
Systems with intermediate TU devices are being deployed

Recommendation:

FG3 recommends that Technical Subcommittee T1E1 address this issue immediately and aggressively.

Expected means and timing of implementation:

October interim meeting of T1E1 to send draft Spectrum Management standard to default letter ballot with inclusion of the consensus agreed definition of the tools necessary to determine the level of interference that intermediate TUs introduced into the loop plant (agreed to add annex for calculating Intermediate TU crosstalk). November T1E1.4 meeting to begin to develop text for inclusion of spectrum management guidelines in the second version of this standard, with the intent to have this version approved (by committee T1) not later than mid 2001.

Mr. Eckert finished his presentation and thanked the Council.

Mr. Waters said that usually when Focus Group recommendations were ready for consideration by the full Council they would be presented to the Council members three weeks in advance of the meeting at which they were to be discussed. The Steering Committee Chairman would get them to Kent Nilsson to be included in the Federal Register notice prior to the meeting. They would also be published on the NRIC web site and sent individually to the Council members. At the meeting the recommendations would be approved by consensus. If a consensus could not be obtained, then recommendations would be approved by majority vote. However, due to the timing of the TIEI deliberations, the imminency of the FCC decision, and the timing of the Council meeting, it was impossible to provide three weeks' notice prior to today's meeting. He asked if anyone present would object to considering it despite the lack of advance consideration.

Ms. Aduskevicz said she felt advance time for consideration was necessary, as did Mr. Hart.

Mr. Waters proposed that Council members be sent the Focus Group's recommendation today and, within 15 days send any comments they had to Mr. Eckert. If no comments were received, Mr. Hart proposed the recommendations be deemed adopted. If comments were received, an NRIC meeting could be called to respond to them. Mr. Waters then introduced Ross Callon, of Jupiter Networks, who along with Jim Graham of SBC, chaired Focus Group 4.

Mr. Callon said that Focus Group 4, Network Interoperability, was in the formative stages. He said the purpose of the Focus Group was to provide recommendations that will assure the interoperability of public data networks. This includes issues that may arise from convergence and digital packet networks. While not intended as a standards body, this group will focus on networking standards to ensure total network reliability for all network sources. He said there is going to be a need to clarify the Focus Group's relationship with the existing standards committees. The group will not recommend specific standards, though it may point out the need for a standard if the absence of one becomes apparent. The group will consider the following kinds of interoperability: circuit-switched voice to voice over packet-switching, data to data, and data to transmission. However, circuit-switched voice to circuit-switched voice is outside the scope of the Focus Group's study. The group notes that the size of the data network is increasing very rapidly. Because of that, scaling is critical. Interoperability will have to work on a much larger scale than that in existence. This means that best practices are going to change over time and market forces have to be respected. Recruiting for the group is designed to bring a range of expertise including expertise in transport, data, voice over data, equipment suppliers, service providers and standards bodies. The scope of the group's activity will to some extent be influenced by the results of recruitment. Mr. Callon concluded by stating that, by the next Council meeting, the group hopes to have a detailed charter and scope, a set meeting schedule and a defined timeline for program deliverables.

Chairman Waters recommended that the group consider not just migration of circuit-switched voice to voice over packet, but other traditional services that may migrate. He noted, for instance, that there was a lot of talk in the industry about private line-over-packet or circuit emulation. He then thanked all of the presenters and pointed out that a letter from Bill Harris of Quality Communications had been included in the materials distributed to the members. The letter proposed that NRIC consider wireless as well as wireline communications. He said the letter would be discussed at the next meeting.

P.J. Aduskevicez noted that there were to be wireless participants in the voluntary outage reporting trials. Karl Rauscher said he and other Focus Group members would be very receptive to the inclusion of wireless participants on Focus Group 2.

In the absence of further comments, Mr. Waters turned the meeting back over to Dr. Nilsson who thanked the participants and adjourned the Council.

The video tape of this August 23, 2000 meeting of the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council is available at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, Room 7-A132, phone (202) 418-2339. This tape is incorporated here by reference as the official record of that meeting.

Recommendation #1: Topic - New Technology, Frequency Planning
	Background & Key Learnings:
		Spectrum Management is key to preserving wireline network spectral integrity for current & future services. For frequencies below 1.1 MHz, the draft Spectrum Management standard prepared by T1E1 provides guidelines for deployment of DSL systems. It is anticipated that FG3 will provide additional recommendations on the consistent implementation of this standard when it is approved. Above 1.1 MHz, Frequency Division Duplexing (separation of upstream and downstream transmission frequencies) has been agreed to be used by the industry. A single plan, defining the individual upstream and downstream frequency bands is essential to protect current & future wireline network integrity.
	Recommendations for frequencies from 1.1 MHz to 12 MHz:
		T1E1 has selected a single band plan (known as FSAN 998) for frequencies from 0.138 to 12 MHz for VDSL draft trial use standards, after substantial efforts to optimize it for multiple service types. FG3 therefore recommends that this good work be recognized and supported by the FCC as the only band plan for use in the United States. Frequency agile technologies may deviate from this plan if they continuously monitor and default to this plan if they are crosstalk coupled to technologies adhering to the plan. FG3 further recommends that T1E1 include the FSAN 998 band plan in the next version of the SM standard for protecting systems using the frequencies 1.1 MHz to 12 MHz from harm.
	Expected means and timing of implementation: The FCC should recognize these recommendations in the next Report & Order in the Advanced Services docket (98-147).
Recommendation #2: Topic - Ingress/Egress Issues; In-premises wireline transmitters
	Background & Key Learnings:
		Signals from home networking systems sharing the public network connected home wiring can leak into the network, which can potentially impact network based services. VDSL will utilize frequencies from 0.138 MHz to 12 MHz. HomePNA (G.pnt.f) systems on phone lines use frequencies from 5.5 MHz to 10 MHz. FCC Part 68 rules for out-of-band signal power of network-connected CPE only apply up to 6 MHz.
	Recommendation: With respect to isolation devices, FG3 recommends that:
		Open standards development organizations (T1E1/TR41) develop technical requirements for isolation devices that isolate in-premises networking signals (e.g. G.pnt.f) from the public network. The devices allow network signals to pass into the premises for frequencies up to approximately 5 MHz. The isolation devices be customer installable. The use of isolation devices for in-premises systems operating above 6 MHz be mandated.
	Expected means and timing of implementation: FCC should recognize these recommendations in the next appropriate Report & Order.
Recommendation #3: Topic - Equipment Registration, Application of Part 68 to xDSL TU-R(Customer Located Equipment)
	Background & Key Learnings:
		FCC Part 68 Rules are for registration of Customer Premises Equipment to prevent harm to the network. Current Part 68 Rules and/or Form 730 did not anticipate, and do not adequately address, the customer connected equipment used for advanced services, such as xDSL technologies.
	Recommendation:
		FCC Part 68 to be updated to address these needs via the responsible Technical Standards Development Organizations (TIA TR41 and Committee T1 TSC T1E1) on a fast track. "Part 68 Streamlining" in CC Docket 99-216 should be expedited in order to promulgate a system that will ensure that rules can keep pace with technology development.
	Expected means and timing of implementation:
		FCC should provide rapid decision on CC Docket 99-216, with immediate assignment of a priority work item to ensure inclusion of xDSL Remote Transceiver Units in Part 68.
Recommendation #4: Topic - Intermediate TU Issues
	Background & Key Learnings:
		Some loop transmission system technologies can be deployed in a manner that places Transceiver Unit (TU) devices as intermediate points between the Central Office (CO) and Customer Interface (CI), which substantially increases the likelihood of crosstalk interference. Systems with intermediate TU devices are being deployed
	Recommendation:
		FG3 recommends that Technical Subcommittee T1E1 address this issue immediately and aggressively.
	Expected means and timing of implementation:
		October interim meeting of T1E1 to send draft Spectrum Management standard to default letter ballot with inclusion of the consensus agreed definition of the tools necessary to determine the level of interference that intermediate TUs introduced into the loop plant (agreed to add annex for calculating Intermediate TU crosstalk). November T1E1.4 meeting to begin to develop text for inclusion of spectrum management guidelines in the second version of this standard, with the intent to have this version approved (by committee T1) not later than mid 2001.