1
NRIC IV Focus Group 1 Readout
Peter G. Spring April 14, 1999 (Day 261)
2
Outline
Focus Group 1 Key Messages Testing Subcommittee Readout Contingency Planning Subcommittee
Readout Assessment Subcommittee Update
Gerry Roth - GTE
3
Key Messages
Assessment Update– Domestic
• Major Carriers are on track to complete Y2K remediation programs:
– 90% of local and 99% of long distance switches by March 1999
– predict completion by June 1999
– Mid and Small sized carriers on track for 3Q/4Q 1999
• International
– Perceived risk of compliance has increased with 75% of previously reported countries having increased risk
4
Key Messages
Testing– Best Practices available at nric.org
– Vendor Product compliance available at nric.org
– Interoperability testing survey
• 77 companies responses, 18 companies have testing scheduled or planned, 28 different vendors represented
• initial analysis
– testing coverage spans the overall majority of access and inter-exchange switch and signaling vendors
– no major interoperability gaps identified
• year to date significant testing completed
5
Key Messages
Contingency Planning– Contingency Planning “what if” various scenarios
completed to supplement existing Contingency Guidelines
– Draft Communications plan completed– Contingency Planning workshop scheduled for
April 27, 1999
6
NRIC IV Focus Group 1Subcommittee 2
Year 2000 Testing
7
Testing Hierarchy
International Fifth LevelInteroperability
International testing utilizing the ITU plans/coordination or specific testing agreements.
Inter-Network Fourth LevelInteroperability
Inter-company testing of network to network capabilities through industry associations (e.g. ATIS/NTC) or specific testing agreements.
Intra-Network Third Level Interoperability
Joint testing of intra-network capabilities (e.g. Telco Forum).
Individual Second LevelTelco Company
Individual companies may elect to conduct additional product or interoperability testing.
Vendor Initial LevelIndividual products Y2K remediation is conducted by the supplier of that product.
Interoperability of same supplier products is tested by the supplier.
83
Network Vendor ComplianceInformation
Unit Testing Efforts of Common Vendors– Listing of common products of top vendors
• Includes compliant version/model numbers• Includes URL for quick update• Will be placed on web at “http://www.nric.org”
– Purpose - Information sharing
– Target - Small - Midsize telecom industry partners
9
Testing Best Practices
Created & Distributed Practice Questionnaire Initial review of replies completed March, 1999 Conclusion: Industry has documented processes
for testing and related functions Next steps:
– Continue to collect practices– Post on NRIC http://nric.org-Purpose - Information sharing
-Target - Small-Midsize telecom industry partners
10
Interoperability Testing
Survey Mailed 01/22/1999 Data Received 02/12/1999 Raw Data Analysis 03/18/1999 Analysis & Initial Recommendations 04/14/1999
11
Interoperability Testing Data
• 77 Companies responded to the survey consisting of:
65 LECs
4 IXCs
5 Equipment Vendors
2 Industry Forum
1 ISP
1 Wireless Provider
1 Other
* One respondent reported its primary provider status as LEC, ISP, & Wireless
12
Interoperability Testing Data
Of the responding companies 18 currently have Interoperability testing scheduled or have discussions in-progress to do so
Equipment from 28 different Network Equipment Vendors is represented in the testing outlook
13
Telecom Providers Who Responded and are Participating in Interoperability Testing
Aerial MCI WorldCom
Airtouch McLeodUSA
Ameritech Richmond Telephone Co.
AT&T SBC Communications
Bay Springs Telephone Co. SNET
Bell Atlantic Sprint
Bell South Stentor
Cincinnati Bell US West
Grand Telephone Co.
GTE
14
Interoperability TestingCoverage Areas
ATIS Phase 11 - Signaling Interoperability ATIS Phase 12 - Data Network Telco Forum - Intra - Network ITU - International Circuit Switched Canadian JIT - Circuit Switched Service Providers Bi-Lateral Testing Service Provider to Industry Segment Testing
15
DOMESTIC SWITCHING
INTERCONNECT
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-1
0
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-1
00
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-1
00
/20
0
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-2
50
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-5
00
LU
CE
NT
1A
ES
S
LU
CE
NT
2A
ES
S
LU
CE
NT
4E
SS
LU
CE
NT
5E
SS
AL
CA
TE
L / D
SC
DE
X 6
00
AL
CA
TE
L / D
SC
DE
X 6
00
E
AL
CA
TE
L 1
210
SIE
ME
NS
DC
O
SIE
ME
NS
EW
SD
AG
C G
TD
5
ER
ICS
SO
N A
XE
10
NORTEL DMS-10 X
NORTEL DMS-100 X X
NORTEL DMS-100/200 X X X
NORTEL DMS-250 X X X X
NORTEL DMS-500 X X X X
LUCENT 1AESS X X X X X
LUCENT 2AESS X X
LUCENT 4ESS X X X X X X X
LUCENT 5ESS X X X X X X X
ALCATEL / DSC DEX 600
X X X X X
ALCATEL / DSC DEX 600E
X X X X X X
ALCATEL 1210 X
SIEMENS DCO X X X X
SIEMENS EWSD X X X X X X X X X X X
AGC GTD5 X X X X X X X
ERICSSON AXE10 X X X X X X X X X X
NRICFocus Group 1, SubCommittee 2 Analysis
April 9, 1999
O = Valid Combination - But No Test Plans in Place (Under Review)X = Valid Combination - Test Completed or Plans in Place“Blank” - Combination Still Under ReviewDark “Shade-in” = Duplicate MatrixLight “Shade-in” = Not a Valid Combination
16
O = Valid Combination - But No Test Plans in Place (Under Review)X = Valid Combination - Test Completed or Plans in Place“Blank” - Combination Still Under ReviewDark “Shade-in” = Duplicate MatrixLight “Shade-in” = Not a Valid Combination
NRICFocus Group 1, SubCommittee 2 Analysis
April 9, 1999
DOMESTIC SIGNALING
INTERCONNECT
AL
CA
TE
L /
DS
C
INF
US
ION
ST
P
ER
ICS
SO
N S
TP
LU
CE
NT
2S
TP
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-S
TP
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-1
0 S
TP
TE
KE
LE
C E
AG
LE
ST
P
ALCATEL / DSC INFUSION STP
X X X X X
ERICSSON STP X X O O
LUCENT 2STP X X X
NORTEL DMS-STP X X
NORTEL DMS-10 STP X
TEKELEC EAGLE STP X
17
DOMESTIC WIRELINE - WIRELESS
SWITCHING INTERCONNECT
WIR
EL
INE
SW
ITC
H T
YP
E
AL
CA
TE
L/D
SC
DE
X 6
00
AL
CA
TE
L/D
SC
DE
X 6
00
E
AL
CA
TE
L 1
210
AG
C G
TD
5
ER
ICS
SO
N A
XE
10
LU
CE
NT
1A
ES
S
LU
CE
NT
2A
ES
S
LU
CE
NT
4E
SS
LU
CE
NT
5E
SS
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-1
0
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-1
00
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-1
00
/20
0
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-2
50
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-3
00
NO
RT
EL
DM
S-5
00
SIE
ME
NS
DC
O
SIE
ME
NS
EW
SD
WIRELESS SWITCH TYPEERICSSON AXE-10 DAMPS (AXE-10 CMS8800)
O O X X X X X X X X X X O X X
ERICSSON GSM X X X X X X X X X X
HUGHES/ALCATEL AMPS (MSC)
X X X X X X X X X X X X
LUCENT 5ESS - (WLess) X X X X X X X X X X X X
LUCENT G2 Autoplex
MOTOROLA AMPS (MSC) X X X X X X X X X X X X
MOTOROLA iDEN
NOKIA GSM X X O X X X X X X
NORTEL DMS-100 iDEN X X X X X X
NORTEL DMS-MTX X X X X X X X X X
NORTEL GSM X X X X X X X X X X X
** NOTE: Interconnections above may represent Tandem switches as well as the End Offices.
O = Valid Combination - But No Test Plans in Place (Under Review)X = Valid Combination - Test Completed or Plans in Place“Blank” - Combination Still Under ReviewDark “Shade-in” = Duplicate MatrixLight “Shade-in” = Not a Valid Combination
NRICFocus Group 1, SubCommittee 2 Analysis
April 9, 1999
18
Sample of Testing Results
Telco Forum– Total Test Cases 1914– 82 Elements and/or Management Systems from 21
Suppliers– 6 Year 2000 Anomalies (all fixed and retested)
ATIS Phase 11– 11 Wireline/Wireless Carrier Participants– 12 Different Suppliers– No Year 2000 Date Related Issues Observed
CTIA Wireless/Wireless Testing– 850 Tests– No Year 2000 Related Anomalies
19
Interoperability TestingInitial Analysis
Major LECs & IXCs have completed interoperability testing or have plans in place
Testing coverage spans the overall majority of access & inter-exchange switch & signaling vendors
No major interoperability gaps identified to date
20
Additional Analysis Under Way
International Data Private Line Compliant Networks with Non-Compliant
Networks Enhanced Service Provider (e.g. SS7 Providers
for small-midsize companies)
21
NRIC IV Focus Group 1Subcommittee 3
Year 2000 Contingency Planning
22
Communications Plan Overview Adopt & Converge on Existing Proposals:
– ITU– US Telco Year 2000 Forum– US National Coordinating Center (NCC) Communications
Recommendations:– Focus on Y2K Information Sharing for Telecommunications– Use NCC/NCS as Coordination & Focal Point for Support to Industry– Enable Structure for Collection/Sharing of Available Information &
for Assistance Request– Leverage Existing Infrastructures & Minimum Capability to Link
Participants– Rely on NCC/NCS to Collect & Share Information on Foreign &
Other Related, Interdependent Industry Sources
23
Plan Components
NCC/NCSNCC/NCS
ParticipantsParticipants ParticipantsParticipants
DoDDoD
ITU MembersITU Members
White HouseY2K Task
Force
White HouseY2K Task
Force
Other IndustrySectors
Other IndustrySectors
PublicPublic
InternationalSources
24
Proposed Participants
Recruit Representatives from Cross-Section of the Industry:– Y2K Telco Forum Members
– Major Long Distance Service Providers
– Internet & Cable Service Providers
– Wireless & Satellite Service Providers
– Telecommunications Equipment Providers
– International Telecommunications Providers and/or Agencies
– Canadian Telecommunications Industry Forum Members
– Government Agencies
25
Roles & Responsibilities
NCC/NCS
• Acts as Intermediary in Inter-Industry
Support & Effort Coordination
• Seeks and Coordinates Any Federal Support
Required
• Serves as Information Single Point of
Collection and Distribution for International
Agencies and Companies
• Shares General Information With Y2K White
House Task Force* and industry participants
• Supports Common Telecommunications
Infrastructure for Communications To/From
NCC/NCS by Participants
* Task Force Will Ensure Official Communication to
Public
Participants• Provide Timely, Accurate Account of
Participant’s General Health
• Service Providers Will Report on Status of Network Services
• Equipment Vendors Will Advise on Common Equipment Issues/Solutions
• Participating Countries (Government and/or Telecom Company) Will Report on Their Status & Issues Within Respective Time Zones Around the World
• Have Reliable Links to NCS/NCC and Designated Liaison
• Should Have Backup Communications Capabilities in the Event the PSN Experiences Any Degradation (e.g., Satellite Backup)
• Identify Areas of Concern That Are Common to Other Participants
• Seek Support From NCC/NCS For Any Required Assistance
26
Operational Principles
NCC/NCS Acts as Communications Center Coordinator Activation & Operation Period: Sept. 9, 1999; Dec. 30, 1999
to Jan. 4, 2000; Feb. 28, 2000 to March 1, 2000 Positive Status Reports as Frequently as Needed During
Critical Stages of Rollover & as Few as 1 a Day Format:
– Pre-Defined Roster of Participants to be Called
– Brief Status on Standard Information Checklist by Participants
– Status on Other Industries and Foreign Agencies by NCC/NCS
– Discussion on Inter-Industry Cooperation/Support Request/Efforts
Information Made available by NCC/NCS via:– Participant’s Representative
– Web Interface or Data Base
27
Major Milestones
Proposal Detailed & Committed by US Organizations
Notification Letter to Targeted Participants
Official Participant Commitment
Process in Place
Process/Capability Testing Worldwide
ImplementationDates
April 1999
May 1999
June 1999
August 1999
September 1999
28
Contingency Plan Scenarios
7 Categories– Crisis Management/Communications; Network Carrier
Elements; Key Suppliers; Customer Related; International Carriers; Power/Infrastructure; Element Management/Operations Systems.
38 What If Scenarios Potential Alternatives Indicated
– Prevention/Mitigation Category– High/Medium/Low Cost
29
Contingency Plan ScenariosY2K Failure Scenario
“What If”Business Risk Potential Alternatives to be Explored
by CarrierP/M Cost
POWER/INFRASTRUCTURE RELATEDFailure of Power Supplyto Central Office
Disruption ofTelecommunications Services toLocal & LD Customers in theArea
Have Backup Power Sources(Generators)
Provide Diversity Where Feasible(Network & Services)
M
M
H
H
Failure of Power Supplyto Operations Center
No Immediate Impact toServices; Temporary Inability toManage Operations
Have Backup Power Sources Have Backup Operations Center
Take Over ManagementResponsibility
Have CO Personnel ProvideCoverage
MM
M
HM/H
L/M
Prolonged Failure ofPower Supply to COand/or OperationsCenter
Same as above Have Backup Power Sources &Ample Fuel Supply for Source
Have Mobile Generator Available toCover Geographic Area (AssumesPower Won't Go Down Everywhereat Once)
M
M
H
M
Water Supply ShortageAffecting HVAC Systems& Sanitation
Disruption of HVAC, AffectingTemperature SensitiveElements with PotentialService Impact
Sanitation Problems,Impacting Health & Safety ofPersonnel
Have Backup Water Sources (Tanks) Create Plan for Alternate Means of
Ventilation & Partial, Non-EssentialEquipment Shut-Down
Secure Portable SanitationEquipment
MM
M
L/ML/M
L
Fuel Supply ShortageAffecting BackupGenerator Operation
Service Disruption in Case ofProlonged Power Supply Outage
Secure Ample Fuel Supply andmeans of transporting it.
M L/M
Building AccessLimitation (electronicsystem disruption)
Prevent Normal PersonnelAccess to Build DuringEmergency
Plan for Backup, Manual Access tothe Building and Security Personnel
On Call
M L
Building EnvironmentalSystems Disruption
Disruption of Elevators, AlarmSystems and others
Ensure Stair Wells are Accessible &Critical Personnel can Use Them
Have Personnel on Site to MonitorEnvironment
M
M
L
L
Alternative Category Cost for ImplementationP = Prevention H = HighM = Mitigation M = Medium
L = Low
30
Contingency Plan ScenariosY2K Failure Scenario
“What If”Business Risk Potential Alternatives to be Explored
by CarrierP/M Cost
ELEMENT MANAGEMENT / OPERATIONS SYSTEMS RELATEDSystem Failures:Application and/orLANs/WANs
No Immediate Impact toServices; Temporary Inabilityto Manage Operations
Have Compliance Teams Assess, Fix& Verify Y2K Compliance of Systems& Networks
Have System Development TeamAvailable (On-Call or On-Site)
Have Backup Manual Procedures inLieu of Automated Process
Have Direct Terminal Interface toSystem
Have Backup Operations Centerwith Alternate Systems Take OverManagement Responsibility
Have CO Personnel Provide On-SiteCoverage for Local OperationsManagement
Outsource Functions to Y2KCompliant Contractor
Use Alternate System or Platformwith Compatible Functions &Capabilities supplied by a Y2KCompliant Vendor
Perform Frequent Backups of CriticalData Bases, Including Hard Copies
P
M
M
M
M
M
P/M
P/M
M
M/H
L
L/M
L
M/H
L
M
M/H
L
Alternative Category Cost for ImplementationP = Prevention H = HighM = Mitigation M = Medium
L = Low
31
Initial Contingency Planning Workshop– April 27, 1999– Washington Dulles Hilton– Co-Sponsored by NRIC & USTA– Hands-on Contingency Plan Development Training
NRIC Website Additions:– Possible Scenarios Matrix– Industry Communications Proposal
Expand Communications Model to Include Small Carriers
Future Activities
Top Related