Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata members meeting minutes and service updates

20081st - 13/06/20082nd - 18/06/2008  
20113rd - 23/03/2011   
20124th - 22/03/20125th - 09/05/20126th - 26/11/20127th - 28/11/2012
20138th - 19/03/20139th - 15/05/20121st GNGC - 29/10/2013 
20142nd GNGC - 26/02/2014   
2nd GNGC

Tim Boundy, JANET
Alex Galhano Robertson, RNP
Erik Kikkenborg, NORDUnet
Peter Szegedi, TERENA
Praveen Misra, ERNET
Bill Efthimiou, AARnet
Ben Fineman, Internet2
Meeting notes:
1) service update.
- Peter, TERENA reported that RENATA, Colombia has been delegated to the service. There are some technical issues (DNS configuration state-of-the-art) with RAAP, Peru's delegation. Misi, NIIF (OT chair) is helping them solving the issues.
- In Asia Pacific region, we have recently received a delegation request from SingaREN, Singapore, to be followed-up. HKU successfully delegated their number ranges under the Hong Kong CC and appeared in the Crawler.
- In Europe, NORDUnet is talking to the Finish NREN about their delegation. Erik is seeking for technical discussion about end-user number delegation practices under the country codes.
- We recognised that some Latin American countries have in general problems with simple infrastructure setup and configuration. RNP/RedCLARA gives trainings to them and some knowledge can also be transferred from Europe to Latin America via the ELCIRA project and the hopefully coming ELCIRA II. To be discussed further.
2) Virtual Numbering Expert group report
- Peter, TERENA reported that the VN Expert group has analysed and discussed the results of its mini-survey and finally came into some concisions.
- The survey showed that the "VN issue" is only relevant to a sub-set of service stakeholders. We need a solution that does not interfere with the others. Many of the relevant NRNEs are using national "sandboxes" that are not fully legitimate according to our service policy. The VN expert group will come up with recommendations to move away from that bad practice. At the moment two potential paths are envisaged: a national/domestic solution and a global solution. There is a slight preference towards the legitimate global solution. The pros and cons of these solutions will be analysed and service stakeholders consulted one by one.
- The next steps are; to come up with a one-page summary of the VN expert group consensus and to approach the service stakeholders as well as the industry/regulatory contact persons for their input. The VN expert group also investigating the possibility to join the "Numbering Testbed" proposal of Jay Carpenter, Phoneword submitted to the FCC call in the US.
3) Service policy clarification
- Bill, AARnet reported the situation on the mailing list, that we have to clarify the service policy wrt. cases when the NREN is "blocking" the active participation of one of their universities in the service.
- The '30 days proposal' was supported by all the GNGC meeting attendees.
- The proposal says that a letter (postal and electronic) must be sent out by TERENA to the NREN asking for the clarification on their position wrt. the service. The NREN has 30 working days to respond. In case of positive response, the delegation request must arrive to TERENA in an other 30 working days. In case of successful delegation, the sub-zone delegation to the preferred universities must happen in an other 30 working days. In case of negative response, delay, or non-performance GNGC keeps the right to delegate the CC to the university following the very same procedure.
- Erik, NORDUnet asked for one additional clarification. If the CC is delegated to a university that university should sub-delegate zones to other universities. The competition between universities may happen but does not seem to be realistic. Re-delegation request is always possible.
Peter, TERENA will make these additional clarifications to the Service Policy document.
4) Meeting closed, no AOB. The next GNGC meeting will be on 26 May 2014 at 13.00 GMT/UTC, if not elsewhere (Internet2/TNC2014).
1st GNGC meeting - Notes 

Date and time:
29 October, 2013
12.00pm GMT/UTC

Tim Boundy, JANET
Ben Fineman, Internet2
Alex Galhano Robertson, RNP
Bill Efthimiou, AARNet
Peter Szegedi, TERENA
/Erik Kikkenborg, NORDUnet - apologised/
/Praveen Misra, ERNET- couldn't connect/

1) Round of introductions
2) Administrativa
3) Virtual Numbers tech group
4) AOB


1) Skipped.

2) Concerning the GNGC administrative issues, the meeting attendees agreed as follows:

- Tim Boundy, JANET volunteered to be the first chairman of the GNGC. There was an unanimous agreement among the attendees.
- The group agreed to have regular meetings pre-scheduled quarterly (i.e. on 26 of February, May, August, November, 2014).
- There are two potential times that are reasonably convenient in all time zones: 1.00pm GMT/UTC and 9.00pm GMT/UTC. The group agreed to rotate these start times meeting by meeting (next meeting will start at 9pm GMT/UTC).
- The primary communication channel of the group is the GNGC mailing list ( Ad-hoc VCs may be called as needed. The repository for the GNGC documents and minutes is the homepage at
- The GNGC meetings are minuted by the TERENA personnel. The minutes go public on the homage upon approval of the GNGC members.
- VC MCU must be tested well before the next meeting. Ben, Internet2 offered their MCU as an alternative.

3) The meeting attendees agreed to create a small expert group investigating and proposing a single solution for Virtual Number handling with regard to as follows:

- The VN expert group shall be limited to 6 people as the maximum.
- The VN expert group shall have a clearly defined mandate in order to investigate the potential scenarios in consultation with the stakeholders, industry and regulators, and come up with a viable recommendation, justification and draft implementation plan.

9th VC minutes

Title: call about virtual number delegation

Wednesday, 15 May 2013 at 2pm CEST

Bill, AARnet
Ben, Internet2
Michael, Internet2
Misi, NIIF
Bartek, PSNC
Thomas, SWITCH


1) Negotiating with national regulators

Peter (TERENA) reported that FCCN, the Portuguese NREN, has successfully
negotiated with the national regulator and got an are code (within the
Portuguese dialling plan) to be used for virtual numbers. In this way,
virtual numbers managed by FCCN can be considered as legitimate, real
numbers to be delegated to the tree.

Bill (AARnet) said that they are also following this approach and
negotiating with the Australian regulator along the same lines.

Peter (TERENA) concluded that it's definitely an option for those
countries where there is an appropriate area code within the national
dialling plan available for virtual number delegations.

ACTION 1 on all to try and collect these national cases, success stories
and make them visible to other NRENs. This can help negotiating with
national authorities, where it makes sense.

2) What to do with

Misi (NIIF) summarised that creating the "" virtual sub-tree
seemed to be a good idea but technically it can hardly be ensured that
the virtual sub-tree (containing both real and virtual numbers) will
always be in sync with the production tree (containing the
real numbers only).

Having a completely separate virtual tree containing only the virtual
numbers (i.e. yet an other tree to query) doesn't sound appealing to the
meeting participants. No use of that virtual tree is anticipated.

Peter (TERENA) concluded that the group has reached a consensus on
dropping the sub-tree idea.

ACTION 2 on Misi (NIIF) to revoke the sub-tree.

3) Picking a virtual country code.

We still need an alternative solution for those countries where virtual
numbers are used and either there is no room in the national dialling
plan for virtual number legitimization or negotiations with the national
regulator/carrier(s) are stuck.

The alternative solution for this would be to pick and "unused" country
code from the ITU-T grid. Starting a collective negotiation process with
ITU-T could be time consuming and give us no guarantees that carriers
will ever comply to that, therefore not preferred. Polling for a country
code that is deliberately chosen by us would be the way forward.

Once we have a global CC selected, there was a discussion about how the
actual virtual number administration and management can be done under
that CC. Basically two options were discussed: a) flat numbering
approach b) replicating the exciting country code structure of ITU-T.

Pros and cons concerning number range allocation, administration,
management and governance were mentioned on both sides. In the end there
was a slight preference towards the flat numbering approach but there
was no firm consensus. Therefore, it was recommended to draft a proposal
on this solution and distribute that on the mailing list for further
comments and suggestions on the actual implementation.

ACTION 3 on Peter (TERENA) to draft a proposal for alternative virtual
number delegation under a global country code selected by the

4) AOB

Misi (NIIF) encouraged the service participants to use DNSSec. He also
mentioned a web portal idea for semi-automated end-user number
delegation management. These topics can be discussed at an other time.

Bill (AARnet) mentioned the training at TERENA Networking
Conference 2013. Feel free to participate! Registration is open at joint workshop

Date: 18-19 March 2013
Location: TERENA office, Amsterdam, Netherlands
1) Joint GN3 eduCONF - TERENA pilot: handling of virtual
(GDS, eDDi) numbers:

1.1) will not change its service policy, although in principle
it does not allow the delegation of virtual numbers into the production tree:
instead it will seek ways to legitimate virtual numbers so that they can be delegated
to the tree without the need for a policy change.

1.2) An NREN-recommended roadmap was devised for this:

A) NRENs should initiate discussion with their national regulators to
try and get permission to use a potential sandbox/superspace (unused
area code) inside their national dialling plan to populate virtual
numbers, or promote such use.

B) The Operations Team should pick an unused country code at
the global level to populate virtual numbers. For this purpose, a
virtual sub-tree (also referred as ' extended
tree') will be created that is different from the production
tree and includes all information from the production tree plus the
selected virtual country code.
This will be available for a trial/pilot period to be tested by NRENs.

1.3) Meanwhile, eduCONF will ensure the following points:
A) Both virtual GDS and eDDi numbers will be populated in the virtual
sub-tree ( extended tree) under the selected country code for pilot /
test purposes. If this pilot is successful, all virtual GDS and eDDi numbers will
become an ENUM number to be delegated to the production tree.

B) In its activities in the GN3 and GN3plus projects, eduCONF will promote the use
of as the global uniform dialling solution for video communications.

2) Participants approved necessary changes to the Service Policy implied
by the joining of RENATER and NORDUnet in the service. These were two additions to
the C. Membership section:

C.1.3. in case a country has agreed to be represented by an other NREN
or international organisation, the two entities have to clarify their
individual roles with regards to

C.4. The NREN (entity) agrees to fully support a future transition and
provide all data when requested to ensure a swift re-delegation should decide to re-delegate a country prefix to a different entity.

The new Service policy v.0.5 is now into effect

3) Peter Szegedi, TERENA was given the mandate to initiate discussions with the
community about the preparation of a high-level Global Governance Committee for
the global service.

4) Participants agreed that TERENA / should negotiate with Internet2,
AARnet and NORDUnet about operating DNS slaves within their region: the DNS master
will remain operated by NIIF/HUNGARNET. This will be followed up by Peter Szegedi,
TERENA and Mihaly Meszaros, NIIF.

5) A new DNS crawler application will be put on the tree for test
purposes. This was offered by Simon Perreault, RENATER and will be followed up
by him and Mihaly Meszaros, NIIF. In case of successful tests we may decide
to migrate from the current crawler to the new one.

6) A hands-on training session titled "SIP-based video calling via"
will be held at the 2013 TERENA Networking Conference in Maastricht, Netherlands
in June. Workshop details and registration are available online

Contributions of existing training and/or tutorial materials (in addition to
the training material available) are very welcome!

7) Both eduCONF and services have now official service logos being
trade marked. The logos were introduced to the workshop participants and can
be found on the service websites, respectively. joint VC (pilot kick-off)

Date: 28 November 2012
Time: 12:00 CET (Amsterdam)

(starts at approx. 1:00:00)


Description of Work:

Participants: Henny Bekker, SURFnet Bert Andree, Antarbor Guido Aben, AARnet Bill Efthimiou, AARnet Mészáros Mihály, NIIF Bernie Hoeneisen, Ucom Nuno Gonçalves, FCCN Miguel Duarte, FCCN Rui Ribeiro, FCCN Jan Ruzicka, CESNET Erik Kikkenborg, NORDUnet Tim Boundy, JANET Foad Boroujerdi, JANET Alex Galhano Robertson, RNP Ognjen Milosavljević, AMRES Bartlomiej Idzikowski, PSNC Maciej Strozyk, PSNC Peter Szegedi, TERENA
Mariano Martin, Red Académica Argentina

NOTES: The GN3 eduCONF - TERENA joint pilot starts today and runs until 31 March 2013 (the end of GN3 Project). Budget is allocated to GN3 Project eduCONF Task. All GN3 participants can benefit from that. Participants outside of the current GN3 Project Consortium are very welcome to contribute to the pilot on a voluntary basis. Liaison with RIPE ENUM Working Group will be maintained. Mailing lists to be used: Make sure that you are on these lists. Key milestones of the pilot: 1) Survey about the pilot options - CoB by 15 December 2013 2) Implementation of the sensible options by 15 January 2013 3) Trial period open by 15 March 2013 4) Closing workshop - around end of February, beginning of March 2013 Interested participants: Those that are already in eduCONF: PSNC, NORDUnet, JANET, NIIF, AMRES Others: SURFnet, RNP, CESNET, AARnet, Ucom Some comments: Survey about the national systems/solutions that are in place will tell us a lot about the potential implementation scenarios for the pilot. SURFnet's GDS country gatekeeper will soon be shut down. All the users must be migrated to ENUM. SURFnet has distributed a technical documentation about their trial on the mailing list. Use of existing valid phone numbers makes the integration/migration easier. We have to be careful with the potential mismatches between GDS and ENUM numbers. The National Dialling Plans are different country by country therefore it's difficult to agree on a single uniform prefix inside the NDPs. Choosing a global "internet county code" (outside the NDPs) that does not clash with the E.164 grid is a potential solution to the piloted. Simple and clear validation policy is essential. There appear to be two different kinds of requirements for virtual numbers: 1) overcome the number shortage (or unavailability) in some countries 2) having short numbers When is comes to the "short numbers" requirement, Bernie doubts that the main tree is the right place to solve this; as it simply doesn't scale well and has a big potential to mess up existing E.164 number plan. Concerning the options to overcome the number-shortage/unavailability, the big question to be asked beforehand should always be: "What happens, if the virtual-number space once will get assigned in the real (E.164) world and overlap with ordinary PSTN users'?" and what is the likelihood for this to occur.
Interest came after the VC:

Status update

Date: 26 November 2012
1) *Virtual number delegation*

Recent discussion about virtual number delegation to the tree
concluded that the virtual numbers must be very well separated from the
valid PSTN numbers. The separation can be done:
a) either at the national numbering plan level (no migration needed), or
b) at the top level creating a virtual country code (for new virtual
number ranges)
Note that the administration of the virtual number ranges is an open issue.

- Choosing a "virtual country" code

It is highly recommended that the selection of the virtual country code
and the recommendations for virtual numbers are in line with ITU-T, the
national numbering plans, and the local operators' dialling plan. There
have been several attempts in the past to delegate virtual
numbers to an ENUM tree. Previous (commercial) experiences must be
collected and a clear case must be presented before one can approach
ITU-T with any proposal. There are tree potential cc options so far:
a) +10 - this is under the North American NP but not an APN, must be
discussed with Internet2
b) +83 - officially, a request must be submitted to ITU-T, the approval
process is non-transparent and highly political (and btw costly)
c) +883 5100 - this domain is already delegated to Voxbone. They are willing
to sub-delegate ranges to TERENA (i.e. non-profit) for free, to be

- eduCONF use case

GN3 project eduCONF activity is willing to run a pilot with
where the virtual eduCONF VC numbers are delegated to the
tree and ENUM protocol is enabled on the VC gatekeepers. A New Idea Form
(NIF) has been approved by the GN3 Project Office.
A 4-month trial will be run for virtual
number delegations. Those service participants who are also
participating in the GN3 project might be able to claim efforts on the
project to complete/contribute to this task (see financial issues).

2) *Technical developments*

- DNSsec implementation at Tier-1 level (optional)

DNS operators are kindly asked to send the DNSSec Zone Signing Key hash
(DS record) to NIIF (Misi). DNSSec implementation is not mandatory but
highly recommended.

- Fix the ENUM Crawler

ENUM Crawler tool works on tree but is far not perfect Voluntary Java developers and Tier-1 DNS
operators might want to help out with software fixes.

- US +1 cc delegation trial

+1 cc has been delegated to Intrenet2. Due to the well-known anomalies
of the North American numbering plan it is recommended to follow the
dual Tier-1 implementation proposed by the official US ENUM trial report
(pp. 7) To be discussed.

- Re-validation of old delegations

It has been suggested that some of the old number delegations (in the
early joined EU counties) might be outdated because of the lack of
number re-validation processes. The necessary re-validation efforts
might be claimed under the GN3 eduCONF trial (see financial issues).

- Use the federated AAI of NRENs for ENUM validation

Number validation and/or re-validation is a key issue if
wants to become a reliable production service. It would be interesting
to see if and how the federated AAI infrastructure of NRENs can be
used/applied for ENUM validation. Having the appropriate validation
infrastructure in place is more important than the policy itself. tree can be used to pilot the federated identity-based ENUM
validation infrastructure and propose validation policy recommendations.
The complexity of the validation process must be in balance with the
administrative overhead and the potential harm may be caused. In longer
term, the Golden tree and the tree policies should be
harmonised, although the tree is restricted to the R&E community.

3) *Operational issues*

- Creating a service Operational Team

It is recommended to create a service Operational Team including the
primary and secondary top level DNS operators and other key people of
the community. Volunteers and/or nominations are very welcome!
Once service has a budget line, Operational Team members will
be funded (see financial issues)

- National service policy recommendations, best practices

A reliable production-like service needs harmonised national service
policies. Recommendations for national service policies must be
discussed and documented in line with the top level service policy and
preferably with the Golden ENUM tree national policies. A harmonised
policy allows us to participate in any ENUM federation of the future.

- New delegations

On-going discussions with Peru and Sri Lanka.
Signalled interest by the Nordic countries, Russia, and UK.

NORDUnet has previously signalled that they are willing to delegate all the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Finland) in one step and operate a regional DNS. RNP, Brazil also mentioned that, on behalf of RedCLARA,
they are willing to operate one regional DNS for the Latin American countries.
The practice of the centralised regional DNS operations and the corresponding
country delegations must be discussed with the service participants. 4) *Financial issues* - Domain ownership transfer Both and domains are now owned/paid by TERENA and administered by NIIF. - Use of the GN3 eduCONF budget for GÉANT countries As mentioned above, if the eduCONF trial is approved by the GN3 Project Office, GN3 project participant might be able to claim efforts on the project. If so, the contributions planned and efforts claimed on technical and policy developments must be discussed and approved by the eduCONF task leader. I'll keep you posted on the progress of the NIF. - Long term sustainability by voluntary contribution to service operations (i.e. the top level DNS service) is being run by voluntary efforts of particular NRENs. A reliable, production-like service needs assurances therefore it is recommended to collect (voluntary) contributions from the service participants (on a yearly basis) and channel the money into the service operators (i.e. Operational Team) contracted with TERENA. Previously, five NRENs have already signalled to me that they are ready to contribute with money to the service operations that is a very good sign! I'd like to follow up on this important issue asap.

Minutes of VC about 2012-05-09

Date: 09 May 2012
Time: 13:00 CET (Amsterdam)

Henny Bekker, SURFnet
Mészáros Mihály, NIIF
Bernie Hoeneisen, Ucom
Nuno Gonçalves, FCCN
Miguel Duarte, FCCN
David Vrtin, ARNES
Kewin Stoeckigt
Jan Ruzicka, CESNET
Bill Efthimiou, AARnet
Mariano Javier Martin, INNOVA|RED
Fernando Aversa, INNOVA|RED
Peter Szegedi, TERENA

1 - status update (new members, pending delegation requests,
2 - Proposed changes to the policy doc - discussion
3 - Collecting best practice docs, how-to's, etc. - any contribution
4 - Technical service improvements:
    - making the service more secure (server certificates, TCS, DNSsec),
    - handling virtual numbers (GDS)
    - using ENUM Crawler to discover the tree
5 - Sustainability of the service (funding sources, etc.) - discussion
6 - AOB, next VC


PS (TERENA) reported that RNP, Brazil, INNOVA|RED, Argentina, and
AARnet, Australia have recently joined the service that has now got 16
delegations all together from three continents. A delegation request of
+1 from Internet2 is pending (due to not configured DNSs). MJM
(INNOVA|RED) reported that the RedCLARA countries are keen on joining
the service. He recently talked to Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador and
Peru, usually the ones that Argentina is peering with, about the
service. BE (AARnet) reported that he knows about the interest of Sri
Lanka and Malaysia. Thailand, India and Philippines are among the
potential candidates to talk to. What concerns Europe, JR (CESNET) noted
that they are considering to join the service, however the Golden tree
is in production stage in the country so that may require some policy
change on the service side.

To this end, the proposed changes to the service policy document was
presented by PS (TERENA). The current policy says that is an
intermediary service and migration to the Golden tree is mandatory in
case if the Golden tree is in production in the given country.
Apparently, Czech Republic, Portugal and the Netherlands (represented in
the call) are in this situation. MD (FCCN) said that they are indeed
finalising the number migration to the Golden tree but they still plan
to query the on the second place. MD recommended to put a
requirement in the service policy that says that both the Golden tree
and the should be queried by the participants. HB (SURFnet)
said that SURFnet still uses the tree and they do not
consider number migrations to the Golden tree but use both trees in

Following these comments, it was agreed by the meeting participants that shouldn't be called as an intermediary but a complementary
service to the Golden tree. Any migration from the tree to
the Golden tree is recommended but not mandatory anymore.

MM (NIIF) noted that it is not clear whether is a public of
private tree. He suggested to clarify this in the policy document. can be considered as private, taking into the fact that only
NRENs can play the role of the national registrar for the given country,
but it is definitely a public service in a sense that anyone can query
the tree (that is actually recommended to all).

An addition to the policy document was also proposed that allows service
participants to populate virtual numbers in the tree under
special technical conditions (see later). In principle, the valid PSTN
numbers and the virtual numbers should very well be separated in the tree.

BE (AARnet) pointed out that the statement about the NRENs'
responsibility and the national policies is not entirely clear. PS
(TERENA) agreed to propose a better phrased statement in that section of
the policy document.

BE also said that the renewal cycle of the service mandate (currently 2
years) is too short. It was agreed to set that up to 5 years. PS
(TERENA) noted that in principle it is good to check the
validity/support/usefulness of the service every now and then.

*ACTION* on PS (TERENA) to distribute an updated version of the service
policy document for approval.

MM (NIIF) asked if anyone has any best common practices that might be
useful to share about peering services, protocols, equipment
configurations, etc. BE (AARnet) said that they are happy to share their
practices and apparently have already shared the Acme Packet SBC
configuration steps that is available on the Wiki (under "How to

Among the technical issues, MJM (INNOVA|RED) noted that Argentina use
virtual numbers and the number validation is not a trivial task to them.
MM (NIIF) said that it is not allowed by the current service policy and
the handling of the virtual numbers must be technically solved. BE
(AARnet) agreed that in principle the tree must be clean
(i.e. not to mix virtual and valid PSTN numbers), although it might be
difficult to guarantee this. KS seconded this.

Three potential solutions were discussed to handle virtual numbers:
a) MM's (NIIF) proposal was to use a separate tree (i.e. to populate the virtual numbers completely separate.
It also means that the virtual tree must be queried separately.
b) BH (Ucom) proposed that to pick an unused country code under the tree and populate the virtual numbers under that virtual cc.
That country code must be carefully selected though.
c) KS gave a third proposal namely to double-check the national
numbering plans if there is any number range reserved for VoIP only.
Those number ranges (in each country plan) could be used to populate
virtual numbers.

DV (ARNES) noted that they practice in case of video conference numbers
is that they put an additional 0 digit to the country code so that the
virtual numbers are separated in range from the valid ones at the
national numbering plan level. This solution can practically be
considered as option c) above.

PS (TERENA) said in any case, TERENA does not want to be in charge of
the allocation of virtual number ranges to participants. He was assured
that in case of any of these solutions the original country code mapping
plan can be reproduced in the virtual range, so there is no such a
responsibility there.

*ACTION* on PS (TERENA) to distribute the notes of the virtual number
handling issue as a separate document so that participants can start
discussing the options.

MJM (INNOVA|RED) asked if there is any statistical or discovery tool in
place that can give us a better picture about the service usage. PS
(TERENA) answered that SWITCH (the secondary DNS operator) has a
statistical tool that shows the number of successfully solved requests
on the tree. Statistics will be collected. TERENA has got the code and
the licence of an ENUM Crawler tool that discovers the delegated numbers
in the tree. Currently NIIF is working on that to put up on the tree. Any help in PHP coding is very welcome!

On the note of JR (CESNET) about the GN3 project eduCONF activity, PS
(TERENA) said that the service sustainability must be ensured. Currently
the service is run on a voluntary basis with no funding of efforts. As
long as TERENA promotes this as a global (production) service and
participants relay on that, contracted operators and funding sources
must be found. PS (TERENA) clearly said that the service ownership and
coordination must be kept in TERENA's hands regardless what funding
sources will be preferred. GN3 and the follow-up GN3+ project was
mentioned as one of the options to secure funding. The GN3 eduCONF
activity leader(s) will be approached by PS to investigate this possibility.

DV (ARNES) proposed to check the TERENA Compendium questionnaire and try
to approach and convince those European countries that are providing
VoIP services within their constituency.

KS asked if there is any plan for an informal/formal get together during
the TNC2012 conference. PS (TERENA) said that it is always possible if
there is sufficient interest in it. An e-mail will be posted about this
(potential slot might be over the afternoon coffee break on Tuesday).

The VC was closed after 1.5 hours discussion.


Attached to the minutes by Peter Szegedi (TERENA)
- Under point 2) No further comments to the policy change has been made,
the changes have been approved.
- Under point 4) it was agreed to trial DNSsec with FCCN and potentially with other NRENs. Please contact Misi at NIIF if you want to participate in the trial. - Under point 5) I mentioned an other funding model that basically counts on the service participants' voluntary contribution to the service operation year by year (GLIF and REFEDS work like this at TERENA). To this end, I would appreciate if you can tell me (in private) if your NREN is able to contribute. I can imagine something like: a) Cannot contribute with money b) 1-100 Euro/year c) 100-500 Euro/year d) 500-1000 Euro/year e) More than 1000 Euro/year, if needed Let's see if we can collect some money this way. I would also like to know how certain your answer is.

Minutes of VC about 2012-03-22

Date: Thursday, 22 March 2012
Time: 9-10am CET

Mihaly Meszaros, Misi (NIIF)
Jan Ruzicka (CESNET)
Bill Efthimiou (AARnet)
Bernie Hoeneisen ()
Philippe Van Hecke (Belnet)
Peter Szegedi (TERENA)

- Misi briefly summarised what the service technically does. Basically
it's a primary top-level DNS operated by NIIF and two secondary DNSs at
SWITCH and CARNet. For a simple DNS lookup request it comes back with
the URI.
- Peter also summarised that the policy is lightweight. There
is no delegation split per country, so the one and only NREN must be the
registry and/or registrar of the given country. In some special cases an
appointed university can play this role too. The delegated NREN is then
fully responsible for the technical validation of their name servers
hosting the child zones, E.164 numbers, set up the national policy, etc.
- Currently the service is operated in a best effort way, on voluntary
basis. We might want to reconsider this taking the fact that the service
is slowly becoming a global (production) service. RNP, Brazil has just
joined the service as the first non-European NREN.
- Answering Jan's question, Peter said that an NREN can join the service
even if the Golden tree is officially operational in the country but
there are technical and/or administrative difficulties in practice
(e.g., due to the strict policy) that the NREN cannot cope with.
- There were some practical questions raised by Bill and others on how
the service is being used by the delegated NRENs. Some practical service
improvement ideas came up concerning for instance security & trust and
automated problem detection.
- Philippe mentioned that there are some security concerns in Belgium
with regards to public SIP server addresses and using public URIs. That
is why every university builds up their walled-gardens of VoIP. Peter
noted that the additional security thread of using might be
- Misi said that we have to think about how to improve the security &
trust of the service. We might want to request server certificates of
the TERENA TCS service.
- The question also came up on how to use for services other
than voice (e.g., video conferencing). For instance, how to handle GDS
and virtual numbers.
- NIIF operates VoIP and VC infrastructures completely separate at the
moment. CESNET, FCCN, and AARnet have an architecture based on SBCs.
Common best practices of using SBC-based architectures would be
recommended to share.
- Bernie asked about the use of virtual numbers. There were two
suggestions; a) to set up a separate tree for virtual numbers and b) to
dedicate a virtual country code in the tree to populate
virtual numbers. The second option seems to be preferable that could be
in line with the joint Internet2, TERENA, APAN effort to send a letter
to ITU-T requesting an unused country code for "Internet country".
- Bill mentioned that APAN operates a SIP peering service (hosted in
Japan) however the APAN community in general knows a little about the service. Bill is willing to spread the word in the APAN
community and also investigate the possibility of AARnet joining the service for testing.
- Finally, Peter suggested to have some regular VCs (every two weeks or
so) to follow up on the issues above.

List of actions:
1) Collect common best practices on how NRENs operate DNS, manage the
local tree, handle security issues of public addresses and URIs.
2) Discuss and solve the virtual number handling issue.
3) Increase the service security and trust using TERENA TCS server


Minutes of VC about 2011-03-23

23-03-2011 @ 15:00-16:30 CET

Mihaly Meszaros, NIIF
Bernie Hoeneisen, Ucom (former SWITCH)
Djivo Milic, CARnet
Miguel Baptista, UNINETT
Jarle Greipsland, UNINETT
Marco Sommani, CNR/GARR
Andrea De Vita, CNR/GARR
Alessandro Mancini, CNR/GARR
Nuno Gonçalves, FCCN
Miguel Duarte, FCCN
Peter Szegedi, TERENA

1) Roll call
2) Review of the current service and policy document
3) Continuation of the service (collective decision/agreement)
4) Operational issues of the service:

  • hosting DNS master (SWITCH => NIIF) and slave (NIIF =>
    CARnet) zones
  • domain ownership (current registrar is Gandi)
  • email list regulations (discussion, delegations)
  • AOB
    5) Participation in the RIPE NCC meeting
    6) Support behind service enhancement and potential new activities
  • Enable DNSSEC for NRENUM.NET, and provide the possibility of secure
    delegations (DS records)
    7) AOB


A.1. service is not considered as a "pilot" service any more.
The word "pilot" must be deleted.

B.1. Agreed to extend the service mandate by the end of 2012.

C.1. Allow University to join service.

C.1.2 Add a new point saying: "In case a country has no operational NREN
or the NREN is not a legal entity, University can participate in the
service. It is the responsibility of the University to ensure that there
are no competing delegation requests in the given country. Splitted
delegation is not allowed."

E.1. NIIF volunteered to host the service at least by the end of 2012.
Participants agreed to migrate the primary DNS operation from SWITCH to
NIIF. CARnet also volunteered to host a secondary DNS. The migration
will be done by 30 April 2011.

F.4.1 There is a typo: change 4.2 to 1.1

G.1.2 The delegation request <> must be checked by
NIIF. NIIF must subscribe to the list. SWITCH will be unsubscribed.

The rest of the Policy Document is fine as is.

  • Participants agreed to answer to the RIPE NCC's invitation and present
    about service at the next coming meeting. Peter Szegedi
    (TERENA) will give a talk. Bernie Hoeneisen (Ucom) may be there to deal
    with the technical questions (if any). Peter asked NIIF and SWITCH to
    send some technical information about the service to be used in the
  • Mihaly Meszaros (NIIF) mentioned that he contacted Internet2's AVCI WG
    (Ben Fineman) and they are interested in the service. It is
    an action on Peter Szegedi (TERENA) to follow up on the nature of this
  • Bernie Hoeneisen (, as the chair of IETF ENUM WG, noted that
    the IETF ENUM WG will be concluded shortly, as its mission has been completed.
    This means that for the time being there won't be any standardisation efforts
    on ENUM in the IETF. However, it is now possible to register new Enumservices
    (besides E2U+sip, E2U+h323, ...) with a new, simplified process. (For reference
    see RFC 6117.)
  • Mihaly and Bernie mentioned some potential service enhancements such
    as using DNSSec or Server Certificates (TCS) for authentication. It was
    agreed to organise an other VC discussing the potential service
    enhancements on-demand (most likely after the successful service
    migration to NIIF).
  • Peter Szegedi (TERENA) proposed that he will initiate an internal
    discussion at TERENA Secretariat about the positioning of the
    (pilot) service as a real TERENA service in the future. It may lead to a
    static service website (instead of the current Wiki), a service logo
    design, etc. Peter will inform the list about the outcome of the

Minutes of VC about 2008-06-18


18.06.2008 / 10:30 - 11:30 CET


- Mihaly Meszaros <misi (o)>

- Kewin Stoeckigt <kewin (o)>

- Peter Szegedi <szegedi (o)>

- Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie.hoeneisen (o)> (chair and secretary)


1) Action Points of last meeting

2) Discussion about policy issues

3) AOB


1) Action Points of last meeting

AP1 (Peter): Approval of Terena (Peter)

- will be moved forward to a productive service

==> ok, will be called pilot service (for political reasons)

- part of the Terena portfolio

==> ok

==> Terena is able to commit for a certain time (minimum time to be defined)

- Policy board

==> Might be overkill

==> Resolved

AP2 (Andras): Possible later GEANT/GN2 involvement could be discussed in the Berlin meeting

==> No progress information available

AP3 (Peter): Mediawiki and account handling and mailing lists

- Go with Mediawiki, unless Terena has an issue

==> Ok, even under domain

==> Will be set up latest next week

- Account handling to be figured out

==> currently only local accounts possible (for technical reasons)

- Mailinglists under

==> o.k.

==> In the beginning there is a need for:

- discussion mailing list e.g. < discuss (o) > (or other name as suitable)

- address for zone delegation requests: < delegations (o) >

- address already exists for this purpose, but current mailbox needs to be moved to Terena

- Request Tracker (e.g. Mantis, trouble ticket or or similar) solution preferred, if available. Otherwise a mailing-list with archiving function would also do the job

==> Mediawiki and mailinglists / request tracker to be set up (*AP11: Peter, Kewin & Bernie*)

==> Resolved (partly replaced by AP11)

AP4 (Peter, Kewin & Bernie): Transfer of ownership and registrar

==> Ongoing

2) Discussion about policy issues


- Asks about audition/monitoring

- Nameservers

- Delegations

- Policy enforcement, e.g. if gets available after some time


- Asks for agreement that no decisions concering this issues are made now,(could be discussed at some later stage).

==> No objections


- We have a charter for trial

- Principles of trials can be easily applied to (pilot) service

- What more is needed?


- Mentions virtual numbers and mixing / population


- Opposed to virtual numbers

- Is against charter (as now)

- Transition to gets troublesome

- Mentions negative experience with GDS and virtual numbers

- Opposed to allow mix

- Confusion is a risk


- Sees the points of Kewin


- Agrees with Kewin


- Mentions regualatory impact on real e164 numbers

- Some restrictions do not apply to non-e164 numbers

- Might impact operations


- Is not sure about policies in different countries

- Usually only a problem if routed on PSTN

- Asks whether there are countries, where legal restrictions cause this kind of problems


- Thinks Hungary has such problems

- Concerned about lawful interception and keeping CDRs for legal resons


- ENUM is independent on the telephony service, rules should therefore not apply

==> Put discussion to trial mailinglist


- Should we assign somebody to rewite the policy document? Voleenteers?


- Offers to review it

==> Find someone on the mailing lists (trial or tf-ecs) to take the lead for writing such a document. (*AP12: N.N.*)


- How about appeals? Do we need a body for this?

- Appeals could come up:

- If delegation is rejected

- If delegation was made, but not according to policy


- Guidance/Appeal process should go to the policy document


- Proposes majority decision among the members


- Is concerned that this is rather vage

- Who is member? NRENs? Persons? Which NRENs? Only those with delegations?


- Terena should be given the final word.


- If Terena is officially assigned this role it's ok with Terena


1) Appaels sent to discussion mailing list

2) If not resolved there within four weeks, Terena will make the final descison


- What should be role of zone host (the one who actually inserts the delegation to the zone; SWITCH NOC)?


1) Take in delegation request

2) check whether is is policy conform, if ok, add, if not ok, reject


- Will _try_ to write a rough draft proposal based on todays discussion (*AP13: Bernie*)

3) AOB


List of Open Action Points:

AP2 (Andras): Possible later GEANT/GN2 involvement

AP4 (Peter, Kewin & Bernie): Transfer of ownership and registrar

AP11 (Peter, Kewin & Bernie): Mediawiki and mailinglists / request tracker to

AP12 (N.N.): Find author of policy document

AP13 (Bernie): Draft proposal of policy document

Minutes of VC about 2008-06-13


13.06.2008 / 10:30 - 11:30 CET


- Mihaly Meszaros <misi (o)>

- Kewin Stoeckigt <kewin (o)>

- Andras Kovacs <akov (o)>

- Jan Ruzicka <janru (o)>

- Peter Szegedi <szegedi (o)>

- Dimitris Daskopoulos <dimitris (o)> (joined later)

- Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie.hoeneisen (o)> (chair and secretary)


1) Discussion about move towards production service

2) Host for zone

3) Registrar for domain name

4) Webpages / Mailinglists

5) Tranfer of the domain name to Terena

6) Secondaries for zone

7) AOB


1) Decision about moving from trial into production (or whatever level) service


- Go to production or say this is a service


- Agrees to move to production

- TF-ECS will cease to exist soon

- Other bodies to be found to take care of technical side

- Maybe integrate with GN2 stuff


- If it is a service, should be assigned a live-time

- Find form to use it

- According to his understanding not operated by Terena, but NREN(s), but it's up to discussion


- Terena should not need to run it techniscally, but NREN(s)

- Sees Terena rather as oversight body (mediator role, guidance, etc.)

- Would lead to a joint venture


- Agrees with Kewin

- The form is to be figured out

- Should not be connected to any TF, as TFs are not stable bodies

- Could include it into Terena portfolio


- There is a need for some commitment/guarantees, that the service will be run until some point in time to boost it


- It might be possible to invole it in GN2; benefit: it is finananced


- Should Dante be involed?


- GN2 (successer GN3) involvement is possible

- Repeats financial aspect


- Depends, on the level of influence


- Financing might be a reason


- Expect financing and hosting not to be a big problem


- Also not affraid of financing


- Terena can help


- Agrees, if included in Terena portfolio


- Shall we now discuss about policy issues?


- Put it to AOB


- o.k., done


- We seam to have two options:

1) Terena takes over delegation

- Acts as mediator

- NREN technical stuff

- Policy issues to be decided (e.g. policy board)

2) Move it to GEANT


- Prefers to go on with option 1), and decide later, whether or not involving GEANT is sensible


- Agrees with Kewin

- Is affraid of the timing, in case GEANT is to be involved


- Agrees too, as it is easier

- Financing not a big issue


- Asks for opposition about going with option 1) and explore option 2) lateron.

--> No oposition


- ok, but form a policy board with relevant NRENs

==> Given the aprroval of Terena (*Peter*):

- will be moved forward to a productive service

- Will be part of the Terena portfolio

- Policy board (or similar body) to be formed

- Policies to be decided

==> Possible later GEANT/GN2 involvement; could be discussed in the Berlin meeting (*Andras*)

2) Assign host for the zone (primary nameserver) (Switch has been doing this till now and is able to continue)

==> Confirmed, that SWITCH continues to run the zone(Simon Leinen <noc (o)> will be the main contact at SWITCH)

3) Assign Registrar for Domainname (Terena to choose Registrar)

==> Already resolved by email (Terena decided it to be "Gandi SAS") No further discussion

4) Decide who will be hosting the webpage (wiki/CMS/whatever)and mailing list(s)


- Server with webpage will be switched off in about 10 days

- Mailing list(s) could remain for the time being, if neeeded


- As long as content is static, no wiki is needed


- What is required?

- Explains solutions: Static, Mediawiki, Confluence


- Dynamical better than static at least for technical parts

- Wiki-like solution preferred to encourage people to update

- Confluence features not necessessarly needed, mediawiki will probabely do it


- Agrees


- Terena can do all the variants discussed so far

- Whether under the domain needs to be figured out


- Tends for mediawiki

- Other opinions?


- Terena should decide about the exact technical solution, depends on technical knowledge at Terena


- Agrees with Kewin

- Would like to make a recommendation for the preferred solution, while still leaving final decision up to Terena


- Terena has also experience with Mediawiki


- What kind of accounts do we provide?


- To be figured out


- Prefers personal accounts


- Can confluence be integrated with Shibboleth?


- Both mediawiki and confluence can be integrated with shibboleth


- Let's go for mediawiki, unless Terena has some issues


- how about access-writes for external (outside the community) people, if Shiboleth is used?


- Many NRENS provide Virtual Home Organisations for this


- Local accounts can be used as well


- How fast could it be set up?


- During next week it can be set up

==> Go with Mediawiki, unless Terena has an issue (*Peter*)

==> Account handling to be figured out (*Peter*)


- Terena might be able about to host mailing lists under

- To be figured out (*Peter*)

5) Transfer of ownership (and Registrar) of the Domainname (Kewin -> Terena)

==> Will be discussed among (*Kewin, Peter, Bernie*)

==> Kewin will also transfer (not only to decide what is going to happen with

6) Add some secondary nameservers for zone


- From technical point of view, three nameservers are sufficient

- There might be some "marketing-driven" reasons to add more secondaries

- e.g. to demonstrate commitment / involvement / trust to attract more NRENs to join in


- Might offer secondary, if sensible

7) AOB:


- Double provisioning (entries in and

- Other policy issues


- Postpone policy issues to another meeting

==> Next meeting will on 18.06.2008 10:00 CEST about policy issues (*Bernie*) to arrange it


Recent space activity

Space contributors


  • No labels