1 / 23

National Networking Going Forward Scenarios

National Networking Going Forward Scenarios. Larry Conrad Florida State University Florida LambdaRail February 20-21, 2007. Dilemma. I2 and NLR are vying for the same space ...the Group A report worst case scenario!

shina
Download Presentation

National Networking Going Forward Scenarios

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. National Networking Going Forward Scenarios Larry Conrad Florida State University Florida LambdaRail February 20-21, 2007

  2. Dilemma • I2 and NLR are vying for the same space...the Group A report worst case scenario! • NewNet is being built on the same Level3 infrastructure NLR utilizes--no diversity of routes for the added value of redundancy • NLR-Battelle partnership has created a sense of uncertainty in our community • I2 refusal to peer with NLR is counter to the community’s best interests • FCC Rural Pilots program is publicly visible example of issues and consequences: NLR petition, I2 protest and statement following the FCC ruling • Ensuring a responsibly diverse and interconnected national R&E network infrastructure is now up to us

  3. Dilemma • I2 and NLR are now offering virtually identical services • Half of the I2 membership has also invested in the NLR • I2 Abilene and NLR PacketNet provide essentially the same access to the same entities (routes) with comparable reliability/availability • ...despite the lack of an official peering relationship between them • Same can be said regarding their new “commodity” and “content provider” peerings as well as the new Layer 2 and “hybrid” services • NLR and I2 pricing models are “apples and oranges” • Ensuring our institutions are not being double/over-charged for identical services and identical access is now up to us

  4. Dilemma • National network services are an important, but limited component of what the regionals provide • Ron J: “Local loops for infill are harder to do than backbones” • Regionals also provide ISP services, regional transit, regional connectivity for state and K-12 networks, economic development • Per I2’s own assessment, most SEGP traffic stays within a participating state • Most present Abilene and NLR PacketNet customers pay for substantially more bandwidth than they need • Today there are more options for meeting our institutions’ needs beyond “just” the national backbone networks

  5. Dilemma • Other important services such as national and international peering and ISP are available outside the national networks (e.g., NTR, PWave, AWave, Quilt) • Commercial ISP providers can provide most of the bandwidth and speed many institutions need today • Today there are more options for meeting our institutions’ needs beyond “just” the national backbone networks

  6. Connectivity Scenarios • Scenario #1: • Member of I2, but not NLR • University wants to connect to I2 NewNet on its own • $250K/yr for minimum 1 GE NewNet connection • ...or $480K for 10 Gb • Plus I2 membership (~$30K/yr/institution) and network participation fee of $22-24K

  7. Connectivity Scenarios • Scenario #2: • Member of I2, but not NLR • University wants to aggregate with others to cut costs via I2 • A shared minimum 1 GE NewNet connection for $250K/yr (will I2 allow?)--example, if a group like the FLR aggregated it’s 7 I2 members, that would be in the ~$40K/yr range per institution • ...or a shared 10 GE NewNet connection for $480K/yr would be in the ~$70K/yr range per institution • Plus I2 membership (~$30K/yr/institution) and network participation fee of $22-24K

  8. Connectivity Scenarios • Scenario #3: • Member of NLR, but not I2 • Already aggregating, by definition, since NLR participants are aggregating entities (RONs) • I2 equivalent access and connectivity • No NewNet or I2 expense, but there are on-going NLR owner/participation costs • Leverage NLR investment by utilizing a shared 10 Gb NLR PacketNet connection (included as part of NLR membership) with access to virtually the same set of entities/routes as I2

  9. Connectivity Scenarios • Scenario #4: • Member of both I2 and NLR • Member wants to leverage its NLR “sunk cost” commitment and minimize I2 expense • Leverage a 10 Gb NLR PacketNet connection (included as part of NLR membership) • Minimum, shared I2 NewNet connection (1 GE) for $250K/yr (will I2 allow?) • Super aggregation example: SoX/SLR might split between 4 states (AL, FL, GA, and NC) at $62,500/yr each—for FLR, in the ~$10K/yr range per institution • Plus I2 membership (~$30K/yr/institution) and network participation fee of $22-24K

  10. Connectivity Scenarios • Scenario #5: • Member of both I2 and NLR • University wants to keep equal bandwidth to each • 10 Gb NLR PacketNet connection (included as part of NLR membership) • 10 Gb I2 NewNet connection for $480K/yr. • Plus I2 membership (~$30K/yr/institution) and network participation fee of $22-24K

  11. Connectivity Scenarios • Scenario #6: • Member of I2 and NLR • University sees no need for continuing I2 network connectivity • Leverage NLR investment and utilize a shared 10 Gb NLR PacketNet connection (included as part of NLR membership) with access to virtually the same set of entities/routes as I2 • Will continue ~$30K/yr I2 membership to take advantage of the non-networking I2 initiatives

  12. Connectivity Scenarios • Scenario #7: • Member of I2 and NLR • University sees no need for continuing NLR investment, decides to go with I2 network connectivity • Does not renew NLR participation • Chooses to participate in I2 NewNet instead • Net cost = NewNet connectivity fees to I2 less NLR fees • Plus I2 membership (~$30K/yr/institution) and network participation fee of $22-24K

  13. Action Scenarios • SURA SE footprint • Has 60 research institutions • 35% of dues-paying I2 member • 7 of the 14 NLR memberships • All but 3 states have R&E network initiatives • Strong history for connectivity leadership • SURANet • SoX, MAX, NCREN, AMPATH • RON startups: FLR, LEARN LONI, MATP, OneNet

  14. Action Scenarios • Collectively address connectivity and access gaps in the region • Seek to mitigate impact on our institutions of the head-to-head competition between I2 and NLR • Seek more control of our own destiny—cannot depend on I2 and NLR to look out for our best interests

  15. Action Scenarios • Recognize the increasing importance of regional advanced networking to R&E competitiveness for our institutions • Ensure our regional networks’ ability to connect with AUP free networks • Ensure our regional networks’ ability to provide redundancy over diverse routes

  16. Action Scenarios • Work to ensure the national networking entities demonstrate a better understanding of regional network concerns and issues • Work to ensure the national networking entities are more supportive of regional network business models • Work to ensure a more direct and “undiluted” input to the national networking entities

  17. Action Scenarios • Establish mutual/shared support pacts/collaborations, like DR/BC, virtualized services, data center space • Explore shared support services, e.g., PR, CFO • Share best practices, e.g., business plans, pricing models, economic development, NOC services, peering agreements • Aggregate services, e.g., commodity, Abilene/NewNet, National Transit Rail

  18. Action Scenarios • Explore regional resources which could be further developed to support our institutions • SURAgrid • Storage grids • Shared security/authentication services • Voice/toll bypass • Speak with one voice to wield greater leverage • Be more demanding with the national network entities about what we need rather than what they want to provide

  19. Specific Follow-up Actions? • Align I2 contracts for SE members/connectors • 72 hour “traffic analysis” study, commencing on April 1, 2007 • Pursue inter-connecting the RONs and assist in-fill • Super-aggregation • Cooperative (vs. federation?) organization leveraging SURA • Improve communications between RONs and with the universities • Get active w/I2 governance structures

  20. Organizational Scenarios • Stay with the status quo option • Continue to work at the RON/State level • Individual RON to individual RON • Individual RON to national networking entity • “Play the hand we’re dealt”

  21. Organizational Scenarios • Focus at the National level • Work to reinvigorate/restructure/extend the Quilt • Build the new so-called DEER collaboration into a more formalized structure • Establish a SURA liaison role to I2/NLR

  22. Organizational Scenarios • Work to organize at the Regional level • Continue pursuing the SURA RON ad hoc committee proposal • Establish a more formalized structure, such as the SERON Federation concept • Operate under the auspices of SURA • ...or a new not-for-profit organization • Other structures/ideas?

  23. Discussion/Questions/Comments

More Related