Second CEENet Workshop in Network Technology
A Report on the Second CEENet Workshop in Network Technology
(The NATO Advanced Networking Workshop)
- Site and sponsors
- The Programme of the Workshop
- The Instructional Facilities and the Accommodation
- The Participants (Students, Lecturers, and VIPs)
- The Evaluation of the Workshop
- Conclusions
A Report on the Second CEENet Workshop in Network Technology (The NATO Advanced Networking Workshop) Site and sponsors
=================
The Second CEENet Workshop on Network Technology took place in Budapest, Hungary, from August 24 to September 1, 1996. It was held in thefresh erected Central European University Conference Center, a facility associated with the Central European University, which provided excellent living facilities and a very good technical infrastructure.
The opening of the Workshop was on Saturday, August 24, with the presence of the representatives of the principal sponsors Soros foundation and NATO, the Central European University, Hungarnet, Internet Society, CEENet, the Organizing and Programming Committees, the equipment vendors, members of the press, the CEENet team of lecturers and the attendees. A short welcome speeches were given by the Vice-president of CEU Dr. Jonathan Becker, by Dr. Laszlo Csaba in the name of CEENet, by Mr. Jonathan Peizer for the Soros Foundation, Mr. George Sadowsky as the vice-president for education of the ISOC and Ms. Jo-Anne Scott as the INET Workshop organizer, D-r Jacek Gajewski as the Chair of the Organizing Committee and Professor Dr. Oliver B. Popov for the Programme Committee and the Lecturer's team. The representatives of the sponsors who gave equipment which made possible the whole effort such as Sun MicroSystems, Cisco, HP and Silicon Graphics participated at the ceremonies.
In addition, the selection of the lectures from the Warsaw Workshop in a form of book under the title "The First CEENet Workshop on Network Technology: The Road to Global Connectivity" was promoted and distributed among the sponsors, the media and the attendees. The whole event was widely covered by the TV, electronic and printed press, and drew considerable attention that was clear from the press conference that immediately followed the opening.After the ceremony, there was a meeting with the attendees where they were introduced to the instructional facilities, the lab and equipment usage policy.
The realization of the Workshop was made possible by the generous donations of the Open Society Institute (Soros Foundation) and NATO. Morover, the contributions of CISCO, SUN, SGI and HP as well as Hungarian Soros Foundation, HUNGARNET and CEU were essential in establishing the computing and communication environment.
The Programme of the Workshop
=============================
The Scientific Programme of the Second Workshop was presented at the CEENet GA meeting in Bucharest at the end of March, 1996.
During the summer it was slightly modified with the introduction of couple of new topics and the order was revised, based on the consultations with the track leaders. The format of the previous workshop, namely to have two tracks, one technical and the other services and management oriented was maintained. However, the number of joint sessions was increased with respect to the last year event. The lectures started on Sunday morning, August 25, and ended a week later, on Sunday noon,
September 1.
The CEENet Workshop Programme
The History and the Nature of Communications
The Inevitability of the Information
Types of Data and Communication
The Difference between Voice and Data Networks
Asynchronous communication
Modems
Synchronous communication
Multiplexing
Packet Switching
Network Architectures
Reference Models
The VSAT Links
Models and characteristics
Access and signal transmission
Operation and performance
Delays and signal quality
Market issues and usability
Local and Wide Area Networks
Naming Models
Ethernet vs. Token Ring
Client/Server Approach
Peer to peer networks
Leased and dialup links
Frame Relay, ISDN and ATM
Basic Internet Networking
Routed Protocols - TCP/IP paradigm
Addressing
Elementary Routing
The Internet Network Organization
Technological prerequisites
Registration and address assignment
Network announcement and DNS management
Managing the address space (different schemes)
Organisational entities (NIC and NOC)
Financing
User policy
Serial Communications
Leased and dial-up links
File transfer protocols
SLIP and PPP
Low Cost Solutions (DOS, WIN 95 and NT, LINUX, FreeBSD, BSDOS)
Network Management
Network management architecture
Extraction and selection of network data
Performance analysis and prediction
Fault management
Configuration management
Accounting and planning
Using SNMP, CMIS/CPIP
Commercial products /OpenView, Netview
Internet Sources and Systems
Electronic mail RFC 822 (mime, lists, list servers)
Mail routing
X.400
Directory services (white, yellow pages and x.500)
Gopher, WAIS, Archie, Veronica, WWW
(servers, clients, structure, organisation)
WWW site creation and maintenance
Connecting Networks
Connection and connectionless modes
Bridges, routers and brouters
Advanced Routing Protocols
Network Security
Internal and external security
Data encryption (methods, techniques and standards)
Secure TCP/IP levels
Types of attack
Firewalls
Security incidents: response and resolution
Security issues in services
Managing a secure network
Local IR Training
User Support and Training
The importance of user support
Identifying the right needs of users
Support through training
Tools and means for training
On line users support services
The Lecturers of the Second CEENet Workshop
Wojtek Bogusz (Poland - Track leader)
Iskra Djonova (Macedonia)
Ksenija Furman (Slovenia)
Jan Haering (Czech Republic)
Miroslav Iliev (Bulgaria)
August Jauk (Slovenia -Track leader)
Borka Jerman - Blazic (Slovenia)
Volin Karagozov (Bulgaria)
Friedrich Krajnik (Austria)
Maciek Krzyzanowski (Poland)
Drazen Pantic (FR Jugoslavia)
Oliver B. Popov (Macedonia - Chair)
Eugenie Staicut (Romania)
Anne Villems (Estonia)
Wilfried Wober (Austria)
On Wednesday, August 28, a visit was made to Debrecin University and the Computer Networking Fair organized by Hungarnet. As part of the fair, there was a number of presentations. One of those presentations, attended by the CEENet participants who were especially greeted by the Chair of the Conference, was given by Professor Brian Carpenter from CERN. He gave an enlighten lecture on the future of Internet, the protocol engineering problems and the quality of service issues. After the lecture there was a lunch given at the Pusta National Park.
The Budapest Workshop had two strings of value added events.
First of all, short "Sponsor's Spotlights" were more technically oriented, as desired in the past. Moreover, due to the 'all in one place' workshop event, the special and free style "Evening Lectures" proved to be a success story. The topics were exciting and thought provoking, and the refreshments and the relaxed atmosphere made it practically an everyday social event. The Sponsor's Spotlight were given by Sun Microsystems, Cisco, and NetSat Express, The "Evening Lectures" covered the following topics: SGI VRML, Internet and Society (after the lecture there was a panel discussion involving O. B. Popov, Jonathan Peizer, J. P. Nadreau, Jo-Anne Scott, Howard Frederick and Robert Horwitz), Java and Assorted Flavors (Sun Microsystems), VSAT Communication (a debate which featured Mr. Friedrich Krajnik from Austrian Telecom and Mr. Jeremy
Morisson from NetSat Express), The Development of Hungarnet by D-r. Laszlo Csaba, the Internet in High Schools by D-r Gajewski and Mrs. Villems, and Internationalization and Character Sets by D-r Jerman-Blazic. The representatives of Bosnia also spoke on the topic Internet in Crises. The evening lecture sessions were moderated by d-r Oliver Popov with the assistance of
d-r Jacek Gajewski.
The last lecture at the Workshop was devoted on the problems of User Support and Education where also a number of attendees spoke about the experience in their respective countries as case studies. The Workshop ended with the Gala dinner, where the certificates for a successful attendence, and awards for the winners of the sporting events (soccer for the gentlemen, swimming for the ladies) were distributed. After the speeches there was Programme with Hungarian National folk dances and songs.
The Instructional Facilities and the Accommodation
==================================================
As stated before, the whole event was a case of "all in one" experience (from the labs and the recitations, to the evening lectures, meals, and sporting facilities). The instructional facilities included:* two laboratories with about fifty working places (50 PC's), five Sun Workstations, one Silicon Graphics, and one Hewlett Packard with the Open View Software installed;
* there were six PC 's in the lecturer's room, a UNIX work station, along with a copying machine, a fax machine, and two telephones;
* three lectures rooms, with two sets of Video-beams and LCD tablets and a direct Internet connection, which could be easily combined into a very large single room;
* eight PC's were delivered to lecturers in their rooms;
* there were eight CISCO routers, in aaddition to the ones that provided communications services to the CEU CC;
* a large number of hubs, terminal servers, modems and transceivers for establishing various network topologies and executing the hands on exercises;
* there was a special room for administrative services, and a separate dining hall was provided for all the participants.
The whole building was wired Cat5, while the external connectivity was with the capacity of T1 to the world of Internet.
There were day and night security guards in front of the laboratories, additionally to the overall institution security service.
The Conference Center of the CEU offered much more beyond the exceptional infrastructure, a professional and kind staff always ready to assist in executing the demanding schedule of the Workshop.
The recreational facilities at CC include a swimming pool, sauna, a fitness center, and playgrounds for outdoor sports such as
tennis, basketball, volleyball and football. What is even more appealing for using the center are the very reasonable prices and a etting which, while is not to far from downtown Budapest, offers sufficient tranquillity for a serious and involved work.The Participants (Students, Lecturers, and VIPs)
================================================
The number of the students was slightly higher than the first year, in all there were 89 attendees, where 41 signed for Track I while 48 did so for Track II. The CEENet representatives of Austria, Poland and Slovenia kindly gave all or part of their places to the countries with less developed academic and research networks. There were fifteen lecturers that executed the Scientific Programme, and four more joined the Evening Lectures (Professor Howard Frederick, D-r Jacek Gajewski, Mr. Erik Fischer, D-r Laszlo Csaba). For the first time, this year we included the position of instructorship with the duties which include help in the labs and during exercises, taking care of the hand-out materials and the equipment for the lectures. Although, the position was experimental and only two instructors were present in Budapest, almost all of the lectures and the attendees
liked the idea an even suggested that the number should be increase to four.
The VIPs who attended different activities at the Workshop were Mr. George Sadowsky and Ms. Jo-Anne Scott from the Internet Society, Mr. Jonathan Peizer from Soros Foundation, Jonathan Becker from CEU,
D-r Laszlo Csaba from CEENet and Hungarnet, Lajos Balint from Hungarnet,
D-r Jean Paul Nadreau from NATO, and Gabor Magyar from NIIF.
The Evaluation of the Workshop
==============================
The format and the content of the evaluation form was completely changed from the previous year, and was based both on quantitative grading and verbal answers and comments. The results of the evaluation process are included at the end of this report as appendix. In general, on the scale from one (poor) to five (excellent), the overall grade of the workshop was above four (very good). Mr. Sadowsky (who regrettably stayed only for two days) and Ms. Scott who was present during the entire Workshop were kind enough to send us theirassessment and evaluation of the whole endeavor.
Conclusions
===========
As was the case during the first Workshop, the principal core of the lecturers came about a week earlier, to set up internal network facilities, equipment and appropriate software for the lectures and instructions. The presence of Hungarnet (D-r Laszlo Csaba, Janos Bajza, and Klara Mikus) was crucial to the success of the Workshop. Ms. Mikus, who acted as the Workshop secretary, was tireless in clearing up custom formalities, setting up appointments and confirming presence of the guest-lectures and sponsor's appearances. Hungarnet also provided additional equipment (routers, transceivers, and hubs), and took care of the IP addresses and the management of the domain.
The staff of the CEU CC, especially Ms. Katalin Sellyei, the Conference Planner, did their best to provide suitable living environment. The vendors of computing and communication equipment, Cisco, Sun, HP and SGI did their best to provide the necessary number of routers and workstations for seamless networking. The engagement of Sun and Cisco has been impeccable and they deserve our undivided appreciation.Finally, the trust and the support of Jonathan Peizer (who also suggested the location) from Soros Foundation and Dr. Jean Paul Nadreau from NATO provided the financial basis for making the Workshop possible.If Warsaw Workshop was a beginning, with all the shortcomings and problems of a new initiative, than Budapest established a tradition with
* a new and improved curriculum,
* enriched content and form (Evening Lectures), and
* exceptional infrastructure
It is our belief that we shall do whatever is necessary to
sustain this tradition and work on the continuous improvement of
the overall quality of the Workshop.
Professor Dr. Oliver B. Popov
Dr. Jacek Gajewski
Budapest, September 1996
Appendix
--------
Results of the CEENet '96 Workshop Evalutions Forms
A) The learning environment(program, instructors, teaching)
A1) The relevance of the program content with respect to your
expectations:
Numeric grade: 3.97
Comments:
- little bit deeper covering, but very good
- some lectures to abstract
- some difficulties because of the differences in the
of the audience
- no possibility to hear all the lectures
- additional training on OS for people with no experience
in UNIX (Linux, BSD)
- on servers, more about content creation rather than
technical details
- some of the lectures to easy
- sometimes too overloaded (some lectures should be
optional)
- excellent program, occasionally too demanding
- complete program
- more serious than the ISOC workshop
A2) The quality of teaching:
Numeric grade: 3.61
Comments:
- some slides not good
- very high level - very good lecturers
- all lecturers must perfectly know English
- occasionally, better need for explanation
- no TV in the rooms ( in order to study)
- better explanations for lab exercises
A3) The instructional facilities (equipment and labs)
Numeric grade: 4.23
Comments:
- relative unreachibility of the labs for personal use
- some exercises too elementary
- too little equipment, especially Cisco routers
- more lab time
- little bit more help in labs
- great place
- such good labs should have been more accessible
- longer lab hours and no TV in the rooms
- very good connectivity
- good program
A4) The suitability of distributed materials:
Numeric grade: 4.08
Comments:
- my grade is four, it would be five if the W/shop results in the book as one from the last year
- more detailed examples as supplement
- put some materials on the Web
- more full text on some topics
- even more materials
- it is a good idea to join all the materials in one brochure (like the year before but more complete)
- materials also in a digital form
- hope to put full materials for downloading
- hope to have a full book
- please, additional text
- very good materials, covering the whole range of FAQ arising in my technical work
- the book should be distributed a month before the W/shop
- very good, right on time
A5) How useful were the Evening lectures:
Numeric grade: 3.53
Comments(please, note that in the comments are also included answers to the additional questions on the topics that should be (should not be) in the future).
- very useful to have two different viewpoints on VSAT technology
- it is good to learn about the social impact of the Internet
- Internet in Art
- sometimes it was hard to visit after 8:00 PM
- all new developments
- some of the lectures excellent, some not so good
- could be used for representations of national networks
- security issues in detail
- to hear more about social and legislative issues
- very good idea
- excellent, although sometimes tiring
- interesting topics and relaxed evenings A6) Was the Sponsor's spotlight worthwhile time spent for you?
Numeric grade: 3.50
Comments:
- some not very well prepared
- more technical issues and less advertising
- companies like Sun and Cisco must use on-line facilities
(video + network) for their presentations and not plastic
slides
- next year Microsoft should be sponsor
A7) What should be improved and/or changed in the Program and its
execution in the future:
Comments:
- I think it is very good such is now, it was very well
organized
- more labs
- closer connections between lectures and labs
- too much lessons per day
- more solicited programme
- may be a special third track on training the trainers
- more practical info
- additional lectures on multicast services
- two kinds of programs: beginners and system administrators
- lectures Vs exercises - 1:2
- more time in lab
- extensions of the lab time
- different venues for system administrators: beginners and
advanced ones
- labs need to be organized for different levels of
experiences
- more information
- track 2 programme should be more advanced
- may be another track 3
- more free time
- unlimited access to labs
- CEENet has to have permanent educational programs, not only
during the W/shops
- no changes whatsoever, only hope to repeat the same
experience
B) The Living Environment(travel, housing, food, social events)
B1) How was your room accommodation:
Numeric grade: 4.83
Comments:
- meals better in the other restaurant
- enjoyed connectivity in the room
- connectivity + computers in the rooms=great
- never seen that class of dormitory before
- I did not like cleaning lady coming everyday: twice
the week is the same efficiency; otherwise, I started
feeling like a Tarzan in New York
B2) How would you rate your meals:
Numeric grade: 3.60
Comments:
- only breakfast was good, there was a choice
- too much rice
- morning coffee was a disaster
- the work of CEU staff was excellent
- more coffee; that stuff in the morning does not deserve
be called coffee
- Hungarian national food is little bit too exotic
- change water for wine during dinner and lunch
- more meals
- more salads and fruits
- the service was perfect, too many national meals
- noon meals reasonable, suppers very good
- good, but rather unreasonably salty food
B3) The Travel arrangements were:
Numeric grade: 4.24
Comments:
- the minibus was too expensive
B4) Social events (organization)
Numeric grade: 3.91
Comments:
- I liked very much everything
- the Debrecin site was too common
- more sport events and music
- Debrecin trip was nice
- during the bus tour there was very little information
- Debrecin was too far away, six hours in a bus is not a
good issue
- good lecture in Debrecin and nice meal after it
B5)Social Events (number)
Numeric grade: 3.38
Comments(includes other ideas):
- we need more social events
- one additional social afternoon
- quite right number
- evening lectures were nice addition to the social life
- to know in advance about sports, so to have sporting
cloths
- more sports
- must be 2-3 social events (trips)
- a bit more support for local tourist needs
- wine instead of mineral water for lunch
- more sport events for relaxation
B6) From a logistic point of view in the future, I would prefer
certain things done in a different manner. For example,
- we should have worked more to prepare
- for prospective future students in advanced info on the
Web should be nice
- to have lecture descriptions, one day in advance
- more information, but good organization otherwise
- the lab policy should be improved, and should be open
all day and night
- the lectures should be ordered by previous knowledge
and announced so if you already know the basics just skip
the lecture
- perfect
- the training in the lab over particular issues, so that
every participant can do a complete lab by himself
- local technical people should be more numerous
- I think that must be some additional mini conferences
where everybody will speak about their own solutions and
projects
- I would prefer more free lab time
- to choose participants more carefully according to the
level of the courses
- the students should have a possibility to choose lectures
from different tracks what they prefer
- not only usage and labs, but also ideas and concepts
- time for E-mail in the morning
- nothing, everything was fine in the program and its
execution
- the final supper, which was nicely organized, should be
held so that smoking is allowed
C)Additional issues:
C1) Do you think that your country might be a good candidate for
CEENet W/shop. Please, explain
C2) In case you have a local w/shop in your country, would you
require a help from CEENet to organize it? If so, how could we
help you?
Combined comments on C1 and C2:
- yes, good experience CEENet 1 (Poland)
- no technical base for the W/shop (Bulgaria)
- I do not think so, our country has no experience
- yes, but this (Estonia)
- not enough equipment
- yes, if in Yaroslav (YSU) we have developed environment for
lectures and labs, and many places for sightseeing and visits
- of course yes because we have very heterogeneous environment
and many service providers (Russia)
- Yes, we have fairly developed network
- yes (Bulgaria)
- we actually already discussed some potential places, there
are a lot of lecture rooms in Tartu university and the hotels
are not too bad, plus the Internet connection.
- no, slow link
- no, not yet
- Estonia would be a good candidate - good infrastructure, people
to do the logistic (technical) work, local experience to be
shared.
- Yes, specially in Stara Lesna
- I think so, but depends on the people from CESNet and CEENet
- CEENet might help organized summer student exchanges
D) What more would you like to tell us?
Comments:
- I would like to thank you very much for all that you have
done for us
- Thank you
- Thank you so much
- Home Page with materials-please organize
- Thanks for organizing the whole event-it was worthwhile to
organize
- with best wishes thank you
- A Web site and the book should come out of this
- If the point of the W/shop was explaining most of the Internet
topics and giving systematized view of them, that you did it.
- very professional event
- in future pay special attention to the spoken English of
the lecturers and their capability to do teaching
- excellent place with excellent organization. Congratulations.
- the security of the labs needs some revisions.
- thank you
- otherwise, a very good job. Thanks for another professional
workshop.
- I appreciate very much what you have done. Actually, I believe
that the CEENet W/shop is already competitive to ISOC W/shops
and has the same efficiency.
- my additional comments will be sent by e-mail
- thank you very much
- I liked it. There are things to be improved and I am ready
to cooperate
- we are very tired, but we are lucky to get many new ideas
for our work at home. Thanks.
- an effort at least as good as the ISOC Workshop, but more
demanding and serious
- thank you. Waiting for the book.