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