1 / 23

Development of Funding Models for FUNET

Explore the history and challenges of FUNET, the Finnish University and Research Network, and learn about proposed solutions for rising costs and traffic management.

way
Download Presentation

Development of Funding Models for FUNET

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. Development of Funding Models for FUNET Markus Sadeniemi CSC - Center for Scientific Computing Ltd Markus.Sadeniemi@csc.fi tel +358 9 4572711 fax +358 9 4572302

  2. FUNET • Finnish University and Research Network • started in 1984 • international connections • EARN in 1985 • Internet (NORDUnet) in December 1988 • serves • universities (20), polytechnics (25) • research organisations (25), other (10)

  3. CSC - Center for Scientific Computing Ltd • limited company, but • 100% owned by the Ministry of Education • non-profit • three main services • supercomputer centre • expertise in computational science • FUNET services

  4. FUNET, background • originally a joint university project • still not a customer-provider relation • expenses openly shown to FUNET member organisations • yearly discussion of budget/fees with connected organisations

  5. History • universities divided into three categories: big, medium, small • when research institutes and polytechnics joined, more accuracy was needed • eleven categories • based on organisation size = no. of people • staff+students (non-technical divided by 2) • Ministry of Education paid for all development

  6. Budget • FUNET expenses in 1999, MEURinternational connections 3.1FUNET backbone 0.9other 1.2total 5.2

  7. Problem: exponential growth • traffic volume grows 150% / year • international line cost decreases 40% / year=> 2.5 * 0.6 = 1.5=> increase in international connections 50% / year • increase in national costs less • increase in FUNET budget ~ 30% / year

  8. Solution to rising costs • cut the cost increase • restrict traffic growth • technically • administratively • find the money • it still costs < EUR50 / year / computer • wait for a miracle • collapse of line costs

  9. Restricting traffic • administratively • only professional usage, not for hobbies • for privacy reasons enforcing is problematic • technically • technical restrictions for students • no international traffic? no voice/video? • restricted bandwidth for students • restrict bandwidth for all (the easy way!)

  10. Market approach • volume charging • only effective, if you can change the habits of the end user • charging universities is relatively easy • charging departments in universities difficult • charging individual students is impossible both technically and politically

  11. Working group • high-level group appointed by Min of Edu • conclusions • networking is essential • no hard restrictions, money has to be found • charging based on organisation size, connection capacity and traffic volume • endorse technical rationalisations (cache)

  12. Centralised funding? • centralised funding if • networking still in development phase • networking is something to be endorsed • user funding, if • Internet is a commodity item (like POTS) • conclusion • networking still to be endorsed • Min of Edu will pay about 50% centrally

  13. Requirements for charging model • left for CSC to decide together with users • several contradictory requirements for charging • ”fair” in some sense • reflect true costs • not in conflict with market prices • same regardless of geographic location • predictable, easy to budget

  14. Requirements, cont. • simple • understandable to funding bodies • technically simple now and in the future • organisation can decide, how much to buy • should endorse good networking practises • must not prevent • development, new pilot applications • co-operation, free services

  15. Technical possibilities • size of organisation (people, budget,..) • traffic volume • national/international, in/out • number of computers • connection capacity

  16. New charging model • keep the old fee based on organisation size • price increase covered with volume charge • international traffic • direction abroad->university • previous years usage • measured during working hours • (maximum increase 100%)

  17. Benefits • predictable, known in advance • volume affects the price, although slowly • encourages rational usage • discourages the use of the most expensive resource: inbound international line • doesn’t affect (cheap) national traffic • OK to have national pilots • doesn’t affect services given to others

  18. Why not... • connection capacity • (predictable, easy to understand, easy to change) • would affect national traffic • might end in having two networks • one for international connections • bilateral national connections between universities

  19. Why not... • number of computers • technically DNS count • would discourage registering • machines behind firewalls not seen • national traffic • not important • nuisance to count, sometimes difficult

  20. The End

More Related