rams added
2006.11.17.
0.2 Dimitris
Daskopoulos
Graph analysis after group discussion 2006.12.05.
0.3
András Kovács
Minor changes, version for internal
review
2006.12.11.
0.4
Karen Perrins
Minor changes, suggestions
2006.12.2x.
0.45
András Kovács
Introduction to graphs, some
restructuring
2006.12.30.
0.46
Karen Perrins
Correction of some typos and
grammar. Additional introductions to
some graphs.
2007.01.15.
0.5
John S. Martin
General Comments/additions
2007.01.19.
0.51
András Kovács
Minor changes, pre-final version
2007.01.22.
1.0
András Kovács
Final version
2007.02.02. Table of Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 3
2. Survey results................................................................................................................ 4
2.1. Participation in related TERENA Task Forces....................................................... 4
2.2. Videoconference plans and infrastructure related questions .................................. 5
2.2.1. Types of videoconferencing services offered to users...................................... 5
2.2.2. Estimated number of users that actively use videoconferencing services ........ 6
2.2.3. Services used in production .............................................................................. 7
2.2.4. SIP based videoconference introduction........................................................... 9
2.2.5. Estimated fraction of videoconference equipments that does support or will
support the SIP protocol............................................................................................ 10
2.2.6. Acceptance of Global Dialing Scheme ........................................................... 11
2.2.7. Estimation of videoconferencing sessions that use even partially ISDN
technology................................................................................................................. 12
2.2.8. Estimated percentage of multipoint videoconferences ................................... 12
2.2.9. User scheduled videoconferences ................................................................... 13
2.2.10. Usage of other videoconference applications ........................................... 15
2.2.11. Data collaboration usage........................................................................... 16
2.2.12. Most important data collaboration protocols for sharing data in a
videoconference ........................................................................................................ 17
2.2.13. Percentage of videoconference equipment that fully supports the H.239
protocol..18
2.2.14. Percentage of videoconference equipment that partially supports the H.239
protocol..18
2.2.15. User friendliness and effectiveness of H.323 and SIP based systems in
comparison with collaboration tools......................................................................... 19
2.2.16. Improving user friendliness of H.323/SIP services and equipments ........ 20
2.2.17. Operating H.264 video codec ................................................................... 21
2.2.18. Most frequently used resolution in videoconferences .............................. 22
2.2.19. NAT/firewall (H.460) traversal support of videoconference equipments 23
2.3. European videoconference service related questions ........................................... 25
2.3.1. Usefulness of a Europe-wide videoconference service for the whole European
higher-education and research community ............................................................... 25
2.3.2. Importance of services in the context of a Europe-wide videoconference
service ....................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.3. Sharing of spare MCU capacities ................................................................... 28
2.3.4. Authentication framework for a Europe-wide service.................................... 29
2.3.5. User access to the future European-wide videoconference service ................ 30
3. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 31

2
1. Introduction

The Task Force Videoconference Service Studies (TF-VSS) will explore the feasibility
and suitability of developing a Europe-wide videoconferencing service for the higher
education and research communities. In a one-year study, task force members will
explore the need for such a service as well as the equipment and technology that would
be required for its technical realization.
This survey was completed in the framework of Activity 2 of TF-VSS. The main goal of
the survey was to gather basic information on current videoconference deployments and
short term future plans of different European National Research and Education Networks
(NREN) and their member institutions, and to discover their opinions on a future
European-wide videoconference service that is being studied by TF-VSS.
The survey was completed by most major European NRENs (19 in total):
AMRES (Serbia), ARNES (Slovenia), BELNET (Belgium), CESNET (Czech Republic),
DFN (Germany), FCCN (Portugal), Forskningsnettet (Denmark), FUNET (Finland),
GARR (Italy), GRNET (Greece), JANET (UK), LATNET (Latvia), NIIF/HUNGARNET
(Hungary), Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center (Poland), RedIRIS (Spain),
RENATER (France), RoEduNet (Romania), SURFnet (Netherlands), SWITCH
(Switzerland).
The survey was also completed by some independent institutions (11 in total):
RRZE - Uni-Erlangen (Germany), Bocconi University (Milan, Italy), KFKI Research
Institute for Particle & Nuclear Physics (Budapest, Hungary), University of Trieste
(Italy), TERENA, University of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina), University of
Oulu (Finland), University of Helsinki (Finland), Universidad Politecnica de Madrid
(Spain), Bocconi University (Milan, Italy) [second feedback from the same institution],
University of Tuzla (Bosnia and Herzegovina).


3 2. Survey results

In this chapter, survey result will be presented in a graphical form and a short analysis
will be given accordingly regarding each survey graph. National Research and Education
Networks responses are represented in blue color, institutional answers in red color.
Notes:
Feedback from institutions is not representative, however we felt important to
present their preferences in comparison with representative NREN sample.
It is also very important to note, that one specific answer from a single
NREN/institution equals to approximately 5.3% (100/19) and 9.1% (100/11).
Feedback from NRENs is represented in red, from institutions in blue. This applies
to all the graphs presented in this document.

2.1. Participation in related TERENA Task Forces

The very first question is dealing with TERENA Task Force participation, namely
involvement in Videoconference Service Studies and Enhanced Communication Services
(TF-ECS) are surveyed.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
TF-VSS
TF-ECS
neither

The graph shows that NREN participation in related TERENA Task Forces is significant
(50%-60%) while participation of individual institutions is not as high. It is a very
reasonable result, which also indicates that the individual institutions are not necessarily
aware of the proceedings inside TERENA. They might be involved in these activities
through coordination of their local NREN.

4
2.2. Videoconference plans and infrastructure related
questions

In this section of the document, national and institutional videoconference infrastructure
and short term videoconference service development plans related survey questions are
presented and analyzed.
2.2.1.
Types of videoconferencing services offered to users

The following graph details the presence of some important areas of videoconference
service support given by responding NRENs and institutions. These service areas include
multipoint service and basic user support:
In-house support of multipoint conferences: responder organization provides
MCU service to its user community.
Support of multipoint conferences through services offered by others:
responder organization does not have an own MCU, multipoint service is
provisioned by a third party organization. In this case, multipoint service is
outsourced (not necessarily a pay service).
Basic user support: a basic user support can include e.g. setting up
videoconference equipments, tracking network connection problems, firewall/NAT
problems, gatekeeper problems (e.g. registrations, call routing), etc.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
In-house support of
multipoint conferences
Support of multipoint
conferences through
services offered by
others
Basic user support
No active support at all


5 The obvious tendency of the provision of in-house MCU services by most NRENs is
portrayed in this graph, while outsourcing to commercial third-party services is an option
that is used to a lesser degree. Most NRENs provide basic user support even though they
may not provide MCU services at all, which shows that there is great interest in the
NRENs to enable the service for their end-users. The results are reversed for individual
institutions, with most of them resorting to third-party