FRGP – NLR/I2

1. FRGP – NLR/I2 Marla Meehl Manager of the FRGP 3/4/08

3. TransitRail/ FrameNet NLR Cisco 650x or 7200 NLR/Abilene Aggregation Level3/DEN 6509 10G DW NLR Core Router 10G DW Packnet 10G DW NLR/Denver 15808 10G DW Yellow = FRGP provides Purple = Utah provides Blue = NLR provides NLR/Ogden 15808 Abilene NLR/Ogden 15454 1G DW 10G DW Utah 650X 10G DW Utah Router NLR/Salt Lake City 15454 7 DW = Dedicated Wave

6. 95th Percentiles – 2/08 Provider 24hrI 24hrO MonI MonO Purchased Abilene (with Utah) 238.8 299.4 253.6 325.3 1.0 Gbps NLR PacketNet 245.5 455.2 246.4 425.1 10.0 Gbps NLR TransitRail 1,364 532.7 1,501 652.2 2.0 Gbps Akamai Cache 127.6 31.3 190.6 43.8 1.0 Gbps Comcast 12.2 73.3 13.8 90.9 1.0 Gbps ESnet 12.1 28.7 51.4 33.8 1.0 Gbps Level3 418.2 124.6 454.5 157.3 250 Mbps Qwest 165.7 130.2 204.7 154.5 200 Mbps RMIX 8.1 13.9 9.1 8.7 1.0 Gbps

10. Total NLR/I2 Costs

11. NLR Going Forward • Currently requesting a one year commitment from each Class A & B member • FRGP conditions: Investor Status, Class A membership, Critical Mass of Class A & B members recommit (9 or 10 of 14 total)

12. NLR Future • Funded through 12/31/08 with current commitments (some expire 6/30/08 and some 6/30/09) • Erv Blythe (Chair of NLR BoD) report to Network Policy Council (EDUCAUSE CIOs): • NLR has several future paths, ranging from the spectacularly rich and positive on the one extreme, to the folding of the endeavor on the other extreme • Expect one of the middle paths to prevail: • a major subset of the members continue to support the current model, including developing the capital to begin an upgrade of the infrastructure, or • a major player steps forward with the commitment of capital for a major upgrade, with new application requirements, and with new revenues to enable the subsidization and preservation of a significant, protected R&E part of an expanded infrastructure • Emphasized under any future scenario, expected an absolute commitment to maintaining control of the IRU's for the benefit of broad R&E and economic development interests • Stressed NLR’s desire to work in a complementary and non-competitive way with I2 • Do not believe that either the NLR or the I2 Boards would be willing to look again at merger in the next couple of years.

13. I2/NLR Services • Provisioning for all services • NLR via owned fiber and hardware at marginal pricing • I2 via leased Level3 services at lower than Level3 pricing • Layer 1 • 10Gbps lambdas • NLR via owned fiber at marginal pricing • I2 via leased Level3 services at lower than Level3 pricing • Both testing optical switching • Layer 2 • 1/10Gbps VLANs

14. I2/NLR Services Cont’d • Layer 3 • NLR members connect at 10Gbps as part of $1M fee • Back-up via FrameNet as part of cost • I2 connect at 1/10Gbps per fee schedule • Back-up via 2x10 service via dynamic wave • Conditions of Use • None NLR • SEGP, Sponsored Participant, etc. on I2

15. I2/NLR Services Cont’d • Peering • NLR provides infrastructure for TransitRail • $200K/year for TransitRail service at 2Gbps • I2 provides peering via Abilene connection • Not free in the sense that you may have to buy bigger pipe to support peering

16. Scenarios • Drop NLR/TransitRail • Drop I2

17. Discussion/Questions