UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
NETWORK TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
JUNE 2000

Introduction

In early 1999, the Network Task Force at the University of Colorado at Boulder was commissioned to identify the campus network needs for the next 3-5 years; to propose the campus’ network infrastructure, including tiered services; and to review funding options for the network.  This document details the recommendations of the task force with respect to those items, and does so against the backdrop of utilization and demand trends, and projected conditions.

 

The key findings of this report are:

The development and maintenance of an IT network infrastructure that can support the utilization of technological tools in carrying out the institution’s mission must be a priority for the campus.  The technical subcommittee of the Network Task Force looked to the campus’ IT Strategic Plan as it developed principles that will guide the design of the network (see the report of the technical subcommittee for full recommendations and design).  In short, the campus must commit to providing full function, high capacity, universal data network access to all campus locations, including classrooms, laboratories, offices, and student work areas.  In addition, the campus network should accommodate at least two tiers of services, roughly corresponding to student, staff, and some faculty needs, and to technology-dependent research requirements.  Some “Alliance Networks” (see definition in Appendix E) will continue to exist, due to their extraordinary needs, and ability to be maintained independently from central resources.  Nonetheless, the new network design calls for greater central control over all facets of the campus network.

 

To fulfill the design goals, the technical subcommittee recommended the following changes to the campus network:

·  The campus should replace Category 3 wiring with an enhanced wiring system to ensure that all campus users have full-function access to the network.  An enhanced wiring system can provide bandwidth to at least 100Mbps.

·  10/100Mbps switched Ethernet networking should be available to all campus users as the standard service.  Currently, most connections are shared 10Mbps, which is inadequate to ensure security, manageability, and high speed, reliable service.

·  The network must be designed to include redundancy, diversity, and spare capacity to ensure a high level of reliability.

·  Multiple backbones should be included for network survivability, technological evolution, load sharing, and as the core of a “tiered” network architecture

·  The campus should plan for adequate central staffing, shared costs, and clear agreements about shared support and service between ITS and departments.

Enhancements to the current infrastructure are essential to fulfill of the Campus’s mission.  Immediate and continuous improvements to its information technology (IT) network will allow the campus to maintain excellence in teaching, academic research, service, and outreach.  The University must act quickly and comprehensively both to meet current demands on its infrastructure, as well as to anticipate the increased demands that will accompany imminent technological developments, such as Internet2.  There is a critical need for high-speed, robust, and secure network connections for all campus users.  The current network is incapable of providing such service today; an extensive upgrade to the campus’ infrastructure can ensure that service.

 

The IT Environment at the University of Colorado at Boulder is ranked among the top of all universities in the country.[1]  The proposed improvements to the campus' IT network are essential to the continuation of these programs, initiatives, and innovations that make that ranking possible.  A robust, secure, high-speed network is the foundation on which all other IT initiatives are based.

Campus Network Trends

Current Financial Structure

The current charge for a network jack is $3.40.  It is beneficial to the funding of any network upgrade that there is an existing mechanism in place for charging for network services; however, the current rate is not cost-based, and it is inadequate by a factor of approximately three to cover the costs of providing current service levels.

 

Independent Networks

The campus provides over 10,000 connections, but at a financial loss to ITS; monthly rates would need to be approximately three times as high for ITS to break even on the maintenance of the network.  That network lacks a high level of reliability, and is characterized by outdated wiring and slow connections.   Because the network often is deemed inadequate, the entrepreneurial spirit has taken over many units—some justifiably, based on their extraordinary needs and ability to maintain their own networks, others with far less justification—and independent networks continue to spring up around campus.  Some independent networks drain infrastructure and central staffing resources without contributing financially or functionally to the network; smaller-scale entrepreneurial evasion of jack charges by "daisy-chaining" and other methods compound the inefficiency and financial instability of the current network.

 

Status of the Network Infrastructure

In addition to spawning cost-ineffective independent networks, the current state of the campus network also translates into decreased productivity and efficiency, on both the unit level (slow speeds, unreliability) as well as campus-wide (lack of shared resources, splintered and duplicated efforts).

The bar for the network is continually raised by user demands.  Campus expectations of “basic service” change with technological developments.  These new technologies, and their accompanying applications, in turn, create a higher level of “basic use”—most visible in the integration of technology into teaching and research—which translates into a greatly increased demand for a larger, faster, and more reliable network.

 

Uses of the Network

A robust, secure, and redundant information technology infrastructure is vital to the mission of the University of Colorado at Boulder because:

·   A recent survey indicates that 97% of faculty use email to communicate with students, and to support their teaching.  63% of the faculty members surveyed have course websites.  These percentages indicate technology is rapidly becoming part of the educational culture on campus, a culture that requires a robust network to support excellent teaching and improved learning opportunities.

·  Academic research relies on a solid IT infrastructure that can enable collaboration between faculty and students, among faculty, and between institutions and national laboratories.  Wide-range communities of learners are possible with a reliable, high-speed network.

·   The student demand for network-intensive applications that support learning continues to climb.  Students come to CU-Boulder expecting cutting-edge academic and learning technologies and the network to support them.

·  Technology has become a new way to do business in all industries.  CU-Boulder is committed to preparing students to be productive, skilled members of the workforce.  The University must expose students to the most recent uses of the most current technology, which, relies on a robust network for its support.

·  CU-Boulder's distance learning initiatives rely upon real-time on-line courses to reach students from rural and urban settings within the four corners of the state.  This requires a reliable, accessible, and secure network.

·   As the University moves toward a paperless environment, the administrative functions of the campus require a secure, high-speed network to facilitate the technologically-based administrative work that is ever more pervasive on campus.

 

Today’s IT Gaps

The campus must find solutions for both the technological and organizational problems associated with its network.  The wiring system on campus (not including the systems of some of the larger “Alliance Networks”) is both inadequate and obsolete.  The life of the technical pieces of IT systems is shortening, while campus expectations of the network are growing.  In addition, usage growth is exponential, so that even current levels of network service cannot be sustained without revamping the current funding structure.

 

Historically, the campus network has not been adequately funded centrally.  Furthermore, because there is a lack of strategic funding of technology at the unit level, shifting additional network costs to departments would require a significant cultural shift.

Currently, the campus is insufficiently wired, has an inadequate replacement cycle for network electronics, and an understaffed network support unit.  Together, these gaps mean that reliable, redundant, high-speed connections are unavailable to most campus users, which severely limits academic and administrative uses of the network.

 

There are significant risks associated with not investing in improvements to the physical infrastructure of the network and its support system, or with not making changes to the network funding model.

 

Without changes to the network or to the way it is funded, the campus risks compromising the quality of its research, its educational programs, its business and operations, and its outreach efforts.  Without changes, the campus could easily compromise its competitive edge as a top, and technologically-minded institution, and put accomplishing its mission at risk.

 

Demand for advanced technology and applications will continue to exist and grow, even if those services are not provided centrally.  The attendant technological vacuum would result in a further proliferation of networking services and solutions at the unit level, at which there is little chance for control (quality, security), and even less chance for recovering the costs of the inevitable remaining drain on central resources.

The Alternatives

There are few, and only inadequate, alternate ways to upgrade and further develop the campus network. Wireless was considered as a potentially cost-effective way to avoid an upgrade to the campus' wiring, but that technology does not yet provide speed or robustness adequate for the campus' needs. Coax and fiber were also considered, but these solutions would prove to be far too expensive for the campus. Category 5 (or above) is the most efficient and cost-effective choice for the rewiring portion of the project.

It would also be possible to extend the life of the current network as long as possible, until the campus has time to implement a new funding model, or to draw on alternate funding sources. For instance, some traffic problems and some security problems could be remedied by the replacement of hubs by switches. Such fixes, however, are short-term and of limited benefit. The remote chance that there could be improvements to existing technology that would allow better, more efficient, and more cost-effective service across the existing network is too remote to be considered a serious option.

The Implementation

The campus will employ a phased approach to the implementation of the network task force recommendations.

Remedial Investment in Current Network

During years 1-3, the campus will invest in network electronics, including desktop network services and inter-building network electronics to extend the life of the network. A complete rewiring of the network will be deferred until year 4.

 

The remedial investment will be financed with a $3 million one-time allotment from the general fund. In addition, there will be stepped increases to the network connection fees, both for current and new users, as well as for alliance networks, to better fund the network. There will also be a discussion about the appropriate use of student computing fees for the remediation of the network related to student use.

Campus Re-Wiring

In year 4, the rewiring of the campus will begin to install appropriate desktop access. The cost of the rewiring is estimated to be $13 million. The campus will submit a proposal to the State Capital Construction Fund in the immediate future to try to secure funding for the rewiring in year 4, although there are no guarantees of funding through this source. If funding is not secured through the State Capital Construction fund, the rewiring will be debt financed, and would require additional fee increases.

 

Both phases of the implementation of the changes to the network require a sensitivity analysis of fees, and the development of the two-tiered service model.

Appendix A

Network Task Force Members

 

Ric Porreca, co chair	Vice Chancellor, Planning and Budget
Dennis Maloney, co-chair	Director ITS--Operation
Ron Ried	Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Administration
David Wood	Network Manager, ITS
Jud Hurd	Interim Assistant Director of Budget
Carl Jardine	Director, Housing
Deborah Keyek-Franssen	IT Initiatives Coordinator, VCAA
Chuck Mastrini	Network Manager, Financial and Business Services
Wanda Janik	Finance Manager, ITS
Ken Klingenstein	Chief Technologist, CIO Office
Bobby Schnabel	CIO, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic and Campus Technology
Jim Marshall	Director, ITS—Support Services
Ralph Mitchell	Network Manager, JILA
Robert Dixon	Network Manager, Housing
Larry Warner	Plant Manager, ITS
Larry Drees	Network Engineer, Housing
Bill Herbstreit	Executive Director, Financial and Business Services
Lynda McGinley	Network Manager, Computer Science
Dave Makowski	Assistant Vice President for Technology, System Office

Appendix B

IT Strategic Plan, Section 6.3

Recommendation: Provide Superior Data Network Access to All Campus Locations

CU-Boulder should provide full function, high capacity, universal data network access to all campus locations, including classrooms, laboratories, offices, and student work areas.

Rationale:

Universal access to a robust, high speed data network for faculty, students, and staff is essential to instruction, research, and administrative services.  Since data network technologies evolve quickly, CU-Boulder will need to annually plan for, and invest in, newer technologies and their operation to extend those capabilities across the campus and retain the essential basic and cutting-edge communications capabilities.  Specific recommendations include:

·  Continue the strategy of providing multiple, overlapping campus backbones using evolving network technologies.  The current rate of change of these technologies indicates the campus should plan to introduce and fund new backbone technology every three years.

·  Fund the operation and maintenance of the campus network to ensure reliability and availability of network access, including increased support staff adequate to meet campus service level requirements.

·  Adopt network management approaches that meet system and client needs for reliability and serviceability.  Client service requirements and expectations for reliability should guide decisions about the deployment of network management tools and services.

·  Aggressively implement security technologies for campus networking systems.  All network connectivity sessions should be secure through initial session authentication and secure session management.

·  Support video switching on campus networking systems.  A limited deployment of video switching capability should be provided to meet video switching needs.  Long-term planning for switched video services should encompass the entire campus networking system.

·  Maintain currency in cabling systems (i.e., copper wire and fiber optic cable), including the backbone cabling which connects buildings and the station cabling which connects to rooms within buildings.  Such cabling systems have a longer life than network electronics (typically ten to 15 years), but must nonetheless be periodically renewed.  Cabling design should take into account this lifespan to be sure wiring upgrades will serve current and future networking needs across several generations of electronic and cable protocols.

·  CU-Boulder station wiring requires current upgrades and must be replaced over time to support emerging desktop bandwidth needs.

Current Status and Discussion

Although the campus has done extensive network planning to achieve the recommendations outlined above, funding has not provided for full implementation of these plans, which risks network capacity, reach, and reliability.  Campus information technology providers have used creative funding and network design methods to extend the campus network to all campus buildings, but such one-time methods are not a substitute or a sound financial basis for CU-Boulder's critical data network infrastructure.

Campus networking systems currently support more than 11,000 network connections with reasonably good levels of service.  Access to Internet resources has significantly grown over the last several years, and this is expected to continue.  Network utilization will continue to increase with the implementation of the Administrative Streamlining Project (ASP) and active use of Internet 2. Simultaneously, user expectation--both administrative and academic--for network capacity, reliability, and serviceability are increasing as all elements of the campus become more dependent upon the data network.  Network funding must scale proportionally to these rapidly increasing demands to avoid serious and debilitating service disruptions. However, funding has not kept up with these demands so certain critical functions (e.g., network management and security) currently receive minimal attention.

Steps

·  Develop a process to determine accurately the true full costs of providing on-campus network access and a funding strategy that provides universal access to the campus network.

·  Create and fund a plan to systematically upgrade communication network equipment and systems to ensure universal access to high speed (100 Mbps) devices as the demand requires.

·  Create and fund a plan to systematically upgrade communication network cable and wiring infrastructures, specifically meeting EIA/TIA standards for high speed connectivity.

·  Establish campus cabling and wiring standards to ensure proper implementation by making the standards part of the facilities planning process.

·  Implement industry standard security and network management systems to ensure all networking systems are closely monitored for performance and maintainability.  These systems should address security and faults, maintain configuration data, monitor performance, and provide account management.

Required Involvement

·  Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs and Administration as co-sponsors.

·  Telecommunication Services (TCS) to provide physical communication network infrastructure and cabling systems.

·  Facilities Management to adopt campus cabling standards.

·  Information Technology Services (ITS) to design, maintain, operate, and manage the campus networking resources.

·  IT Council to provide guidance and programmatic direction.

·  The departments of Housing and Libraries, as IT providers, to consult on network design and supported services.

 

 

 

Expected Costs

 

Annual IT Infrastructure Investment

 

Infrastructure costs include connectivity hardware, building networking systems, campus wide area network (WAN) systems, network management systems, cabling systems, and connectivity to the Internet.  These costs have both initial and renewal/replacement components.  These costs are estimated to be $22 million, with annual costs estimated to be $4.4 million per year.

 

Operating and Maintenance

 

Hardware and software maintenance for the networking systems will average $200,000 per year. In addition, subscription fees for Internet connectivity is estimated to be $500,000 per year.

 

Personnel

 

Personnel for networking needs to increase by approximately five full-time employees (FTE), which will cost approximately $450,000 per year (including salaries, benefits, training, travel, etc.).

 

Funding

 

Funding mechanisms for the campus data network will have to be established by the planning process outlined, but will likely include a combination of charge-back fees for desktop services and institutional funding for campus-wide core services (the "IT Commons").

 

Timing

 

Enhancements to the existing campus communication network and infrastructures are needed annually, and should begin in fiscal year 1998-99.

 

 

Appendix C

Report of the Technical Subcommittee

Scope of this report:

This report discusses the University of Colorado at Boulder data network.  Although this is usually thought of as “the Ethernet network” by end-users, it actually encompasses much more.  The physical infrastructure behind the walls and between the buildings, the electronics which form the campus backbone, connectivity to the Internet and research/education networks, remote access devices, skilled support personnel, and services such as DHCP and DNS necessary to make the network usable are among the considerations.  Application-level services such as email and web servers and their support costs are not considered, except for the traffic they generate on the data network.

For the most part, this report does not consider the campus voice network - PBX replacement, voicemail services, teleconferencing, or costs associated with voice traffic such as long distance rates  - except where it coincides with the data network (telecommunications closets, fiber optic infrastructure, conduits).  The campus geography suggests that combining voice and data services on one facility would not be cost-effective, and the voice network on its own already has an adequate funding model in place.

Campus cable television and video in general are not part of this study, except for considering the volume of traffic some video applications may generate by travelling over the data network.  This report does not discuss the need for, or costs associated with, providing video equipment to classrooms or conference rooms, storage and retrieval of video libraries, or broadcast studios and facilities.

The work of the technical subcommittee is based on the IT Strategic Plan produced last year, particularly section 6.3.  This document can be found at http://www.colorado.edu/ITplan.  Section 6.3 asserts that

“CU-Boulder should provide full function, high capacity, universal data network access to all campus locations, including classrooms, laboratories, offices, and student work areas.” 

The subcommittee did not choose to delve into complete technical details down to specifying technologies, equipment, or locations.  It was decided ITS network engineering staff is in the best position to do this.  Rather, the group saw it’s task as being to state or confirm some general principles that should guide the network design and the presentation of the associated costs.

The subcommittee used the following resources in their decision making process: current and past network diagrams, the IT Strategic Plan from last year, the cost spreadsheet produced last year by ITS staff as part of the strategic planning process, quotes and web-based information from vendors such as Cisco, Qwest, US West, and MCI, information on Abilene and external network costs from ITS, personal experience and input from their constituents.

The following statements are items on which the group had consensus, and were considered important principles in guiding the technical design of the campus network for the next three to five years and the presentation of the associated costs to the network task force at large.

Principles:

·   The campus should pursue replacing all Category 3 wiring with the highest quality wiring practical, minimally Category 5, in a reasonable time-frame on a systematic basis.  All new wiring installed, whether in old buildings or new buildings, should be Category 5 or better.  This is necessary to ensure that all campus users have full-function access to the network, and will be able to take advantage of future network services.  All modern protocol standards are based on the assumption of Category 5 or better wiring. 

·   Fiber-to-the-desktop was considered and discarded by the group for systematic installation at this time.  Fiber components remain extremely expensive.  Fiber connections should continue to be supported to customer locations on an as-needed basis.

·   10/100Mbps switched Ethernet networking should be available to all campus users as the standard service.  Repeaters and hubs should not be used in the general campus infrastructure.  Repeated networks are more difficult to engineer and maintain, and do not provide the full-function, high-capacity access mandated in the strategic plan.

·   It was agreed that CU-Boulder must continue to get full commodity Internet routing via two separate Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) at DS-3 speeds or higher.  A connection to a research/education network is not a substitute for a second commercial service provider.  The group realized this is very costly, but decided that an institution of our size and stature should not be dependent on a single ISP.  It would be best if these ISP’s were accessed through separate physical facilities with diverse routing.  All campus users should share these costs in some equitable manner.  Bit accounting is not practical.

·   The campus should continue to participate in research/education networking initiatives, such as Internet2, even if grant funding is not available to help defray costs.  If there is no (or inadequate) grant funding, all campus users should share in the cost of research network participation, not just research departments.

·   In general, the data network has not historically had the redundancy, diversity, and spare capacity built-in to ensure a high level of reliability.  It was agreed that this needs to be changed at many levels, especially at the core and aggregation points, but more generally up through most of the larger building entrances.  This includes dual power supplies and backup battery power.

·   The campus should continue the strategy of providing multiple backbones for network survivability, technological evolution, and load sharing.  The backbones serve as the core of a “tiered” network architecture.  The current direction toward more routed segments rather than a flatter, switch network was supported by the subcommittee members, as well as the use of Gigabit Ethernet technology in the backbone.

·   Network engineering staffing is currently inadequate to meet the service expectations of campus customers.  It was agreed that the resources needed include additional professional-level technical staff in both backbone and LAN engineering.

·  All campus network users should share in the cost of supporting the development of off-the-shelf solutions and recommended standards for network use for the campus.  Today, ITS is too often behind the curve due to staffing and funding issues, and there is a resultant duplication of effort among local network managers.  ITS should have the resources to provide leadership to the campus in this area.

·   Some amount of network management and coordination of local network management groups should be provided centrally.  Network security should be funded both locally and centrally.  A network security position should be funded and filled.

·   There should be a migration over the life of this planning process towards a network based on the IP protocol.  However, AppleTalk and Novell IPX protocols will need to continue to be supported during a significant transitional period, despite the fact that faster, cheaper devices could be purchased if the campus went to an IP-only environment.

·   Wireless is an interesting question, but as the strategic plan asserts, wireless should be investigated for limited deployment where mobility is required and it is the most cost effective option.  It was agreed that although a universal wireless data rollout would not be a wise use of resources at this time, ITS should continue to investigate wireless and deploy it where appropriate.

·   Costs need to be presented in such a way that the backbone facilities and services that all departments use can be easily separated from more locally-oriented infrastructure and services.  There is a wide spectrum of degree of support of network connections by the local department and by ITS.  Clearer agreements of degree of support and service between ITS and departments will be necessary in justifying network charges to the departments.

 

 

Costs:

In most cases, the replacement schedule for hardware is less than five years.  Costs that are not included are indirect costs (space, utilities, GAIR, etc.), increase in personnel costs over time, equipment replacement and support costs associated with ResNet (they are considered a self-supporting department), BRAN installation costs (already allocated), and four-campus networking costs other than staffing needs (line charges are handled by Central).

Backbone electronics and services include all equipment and services among larger buildings that have many network segments (including feeds from smaller buildings), and from the campus to the Internet.  Mid-size and small buildings usually have only a single LAN (Local Area Network) throughout, and are therefore included under LAN costs.

Examples of certain categories of sites are the following:

Core sites – there are no user segments on these devices at all, they are purely large-scale, high-speed distribution hubs.  Because of this, these sites may also be listed under large complexes or high-density buildings to reflect the user segments actually served out of that site.  Examples of such sites today are Telecommunications, Engineering , and the ‘hut’ at 30^th and Colorado.

Aggregation points/large complexes – examples include Telecommunications, Engineering, Computing Center, Regent Hall, and new Humanities.  These are backbone devices used to distribute the network to other smaller buildings that were not large enough to have their own connection directly on a core device.  They sometimes double as distribution devices out to other switches in wings or sections of large buildings.

High density, high-tech buildings with aggregation – examples include LASP (east campus), Stadium, Physics, and RL-3.  These devices are similar to the above, but on a smaller scale.  Only a portion of their functionality is distribution of the backbone, and they may not have as critical of a need for redundancy or as high of bandwidth demands.

Medium density buildings – these fall under local networking because they are only designed to serve the occupants of that building.  The building in question has a large number of users with moderately high bandwidth needs.  Examples may include Law, Ramaley, Math, Environmental Design, and Wardenburg.

Light density buildings – are smaller in number of connections and have lower bandwidth needs in general.  Examples include Fiske Planetarium, IEC, the Rec Center, Coors Events Center, the Cottage, and Henderson Museum.

Staffing levels have been increased as recommended.  The increase is from 9 to 14 in the ITS Network Engineering and Operations group.

The campus backbone physical infrastructure includes the facilities that house the backbone electronics (communications closets with adequate space, security, HVAC, and power), the fiber optic cables and paths that physically run underground among campus buildings.  Additionally, the staff and equipment necessary to maintain the above in working order and augment facilities as necessary.

Internet subscriptions include the recommended two separate ISP’s (Internet Service Providers) for commercial Internet access, the line and service charges for provisioning a connection to a research/ education network, it’s membership fees, and provisioning for DSL service. Although remote access equipment, staffing, and line charges are currently paid for out of student technology fees, these costs are included on the spreadsheet so that that contribution of funds could be understood more clearly.

Centrally supported services include a small portion of servers that deliver network-operations-specific services.  Campus networking cannot function properly without DNS and DHCP servers.  A minimal number of these should be supported centrally as part of networking costs.  The development of networking solutions for campus customers was approximated by two FTE plus equipment.

Campus local physical infrastructure includes the “riser” fiber from the main closet up through the intermediate floor closets, and the horizontal copper wiring from the floor closet to the user’s wall jack.  It also includes the staffing and equipment to install and maintain it.

Local electronics and support includes the network electronics required to provide desktop network access.  Additionally, staff and equipment are required to install, maintain, and support the network services.

Appendix D

Peer Institution Survey

Purpose:  The purpose of the peer institution survey is to gather information about the organization and structure of the service units responsible for campus networks; the technical characteristics of networks; and network funding issues and models at peer institutions.

Methods:  Some institutions were interviewed by phone, others submitted their answers electronically.

Respondents:

 

Institution	Contact
Colorado State University (CSU)	Scott Bailey
Iowa State University (IOWA)	John Kingland
University of Arizona (UAZ)	Dan Roman
University of California at Irvine (UCI)	Garrett Hildebrand
University of California, Berkeley (BERK)	Clif Frost
University of Colorado at Boulder (UCB)	David Wood
University of Washington (UWA)	Terry Gray
University of Wisconsin (WISC)	Tad Pinkerton

Data Summary:

The data summary focuses on discrete sections of the survey, around the following network issues:

·  Voice and Data Organization and Division of Labor

This information summarizes answers from question 2 about the background information of campus IT environments.  This section describes how voice and data units are related or organized, and what the roles and responsibilities of those units are.

·  Intrabuilding Network Infrastructure and Services

This information summarizes answers from question 3, and describes the building wiring and desktop connections.

·  Interbuilding Network Infrastructure and Services

This information summarizes answers from question 4, and describes the network backbone and external connections.

·  Funding of Network

This information summarizes answers from questions 5, 6, and 7, and gives information about the funding models for both infrastructure, and desktop connects, and includes a voice/data rate model comparison.

Voice and Data Organization, and Division of Labor

 

	Organizational Structure and Division of Labor
CSU	· Voice and Data in same organization.  One director is in charge of two groups:  Academic Computing and Network Services; and Office of Telecommunications · Network operations centralized for backbone, network, dial-up services, central services; decentralized management of departmental LANs. ·  Installation handled centrally in most instances · Maintenance handled centrally to building, then locally.
IOWA	· Voice and Data in same organization.  Network maintained by Administrative Data Processing (hw/sw support) and Telecommunications (physical network and connections for data, voice, and video). ·  Network operations centralized with few exceptions ·  Installation handled by Telecommunications ·  Maintenance handled by Telecommunications (Layer 1,2,3) and ADP and Computation Center (4, 5,6).
UAZ	· Voice and Data in same organization.  Data and voice have been within Telecommunications since 1986-87.  Network Operations Group is in charge of the day-to-day operations of routers, hubs, etc.  Engineering and estimating does design and consulting for both voice and data. ·  Network operations centralized with caveat:  some departments have own connectivity (computer science, space science, etc.) ·  Installation handled by Network Operations Group · Maintenance is a mixed bag; NOG does about 85% of it, the rest is local.
UCI	·  Voice and Data in same organization.  Electronic Communication Services has groups for programming (support of network services; also runs the Network Operations Center) and for operations (implements and supports all voice and data infrastructure). ·  Network operations are mostly centralized, abut 80%; 20% decentralized support of LANS; certain organizations (10-20% of the campus) pay to provide computing support for (primarily) UNIX workstations of their LANS, thus, in some organizations, OAC/ECS provide 100% of their support. ·  Installation handled by ECS ·  Maintenance to wallplate handled by ECS, but otherwise decentralized support of LANs
BERK	· Voice and Data in same organization.  Communication and Network Services provides both voice and data services. ·   Network Operations very centralized although a few departments are somewhat independent ·  Installation handled by Network Development (wiring, operations, installation, and repair) and OIR (Operation, Installation, and Repair), which handles electronics. · Maintenance handled by OIR
UCB	· Voice and Data in same organization.  Two separate parts of the organization.  The voice side handles all of the wiring, even for the data side. · Network Operations are somewhat decentralized:  ¼ Housing, and the remaining ¾ split about evenly between centrally managed, and distributed (Computer Science, some departments within Engineering, FacMan) ·  Installation handled by voice department ·   Maintenance for the most part handled by operation and management; bad wiring, then voice handles it.

	Organizational Structure and Division of Labor (continued)
UWA	·Voice and Data in same organization.  Networks and Distributed Computing (data networking from Layer 2 up) and Communication Technologies (wire plant and voice) both part of Central Computing and Communications. ·Network Operations are centralized ·Installation handled by CommTech (wire plant) and NDC (Ethernet dial tone) · Maintenance handled by NDC
WISC	·Voice and Data in same organization.  There is a single service bureau for voice and data called Network Operations, supported by a technologist group called Network Engineering.  Directors of both parent departments (Production Services and Systems Engineering respectively) report to CIO. · Network Operations are somewhat decentralized.  NetOps provides backbone and external access, departments are responsible for their own LANs or they contract with a central unit ·Installation handled by NetOps; staff will train departments to make their own LAN connections. ·Maintenance of LANs is handled by units (which can contract centrally)

Points of Interest:  At the very least, voice and data are two units in the same organization.  Some institutions have greater overlap than others.  Most institutions have centralized network operations.  Exceptions are CU-Boulder and the University of Wisconsin.  Maintenance is usually handled centrally to the buildings, then locally.  Exceptions are Berkeley (highly centralized) and the University of Washington.  In terms of general organization and services, the University of Wisconsin is the most like CU-Boulder.

Intrabuilding Structure and Services

 

	Intrabuilding Structure and Services
CSU	· Office Connectivity.  Cat3 and Cat5 (still sub-standard coax); switched 10/100 ·   Total Connections 11,300; 1,400 last year · Future Plans to migrate to horizontal Category 5 or 6 copper with vertical fiber risers · Service Classes None except for meritorious researchers in high-performance connection grants (they get higher quality service)
IOWA	· Office Connectivity.  Cat3 and Cat5; switched fast Ethernet · Total Connections 10,500 ·  Future Plans to migrate to horizontal Cat5 E or Level 7 in horizontal; providing pathways for fiber in horizontal and vertical; installing some multimode fiber in vertical. · Service Classes 100Mbps not offered in student residences.
UAZ	·  Office Connectivity.  Cat3 and Cat5 (still some sub-standard coax); switched 10/100 · Total Connections 28,000; 4,000 last year · Future Plans to migrate to horizontal 5 or 6 with vertical fiber risers ·  Service Classes None except for meritorious researchers in high-performance connection grants (they get higher quality service)
	Intrabuilding Structure and Services (continued)
UCI	· Office Connectivity.  Cat3, Cat5, Coax, Fiber.  No campus deployment of wireless networking.  Cat5 is standard now being installed.  Switched 10/10; 10/100 to servers.  Core is gigabit Ethernet. ·  Total Connections 14,000; 2,000 last year ·  Future Plans continue to migrate to switched 10 to the desktop, switched 100 to servers, over Cat5; move towards 10/100 switched, with gigabit uplinks over fiber for servers. · Service Classes Additional Network Services available for an additional fee (e.g., gigabit Ethernet to the end-user or ATM).
BERK	·  Office Connectivity.  Cat5 and Coax (old standard); switched 10/10 current optional; switched 10/100 fast Ethernet · Total Connections 37,000 ·  Future Plans Fiber risers and Cat5 horizontal with fiber inter-building.  Both single and multi-mode fiber being pulled.  Moving from shared Ethernet to switched, probably to 100mbs at the same time.  Migrating the backbone from FDDI to gigabit Ethernet. · Service Classes None for on-campus network connections. For modems, faculty have their own modem pool funded by the Chancellor.  Everyone else can use overcrowded free modems or pay $10/month for nicer access.
UCB	·   Office Connectivity.  Cat3 (more than half, all old wiring) and Cat5 (all residence halls, and all new installations); some old coax; switched 10/10 (new special standard) ·   Total Connections ·   Future Plans Whole new remodel before we jump toCat5; want every connection to be switched 10 or 100. · Service Classes Residence Halls best service; because of financial limitations, most office connections limited to 10 repeated
UWA	· Office Connectivity.  Most buildings are Cat3, a few are Cat5; a few are coax; fiber between buildings; shared 10 · Total Connections 40,000 ·  Future Plans moving from shared 10 to switched 10 (in cat3 buildings)  or switched 100 (in Cat5 buildings) as quickly as possible ·  Service Classes Dorm nets have some access restrictions; otherwise no
WISC	· Office Connectivity.  Cat3 and Cat5; fiber; multi-mode in the risers; provide 10 or 100 Mb Ethernet or an ATM port at up to 155 Mb to a department. ·  Total Connections possibly 30,000 (almost all provided non-centrally) ·  Future Plans as resources permit, upgrading cabling in buildings from Cat3 to Cat5 and adding more multi-mode fiber within buildings and single mode fiber between buildings. ·  Service Classes None except for meritorious researchers in high-performance connection grants (they get higher quality service)

Points of Interest:  Cat5 wiring is the new standard for most institutions.  There seems to be a general movement toward switched 10 or 100, and increased use of multi-mode wiring.  The University of Arizona seems to be the one two watch here, with vertical fiber risers, Cat5 E or Level 7 horizontal.  In terms of intrabuilding infrastructure, CU-Boulder is again most like the University of Wisconsin, and also the University of Washington.  All three schools seem a bit further behind the others.

Interbuilding Infrastructure

	Interbuilding Infrastructure
CSU	·Geography:  Main campus and lots of peripheral stuff (big vet teaching hospital two miles north; foothills campus 5 miles west; many extension offices throughout the state).  100 buildings · Physical Infrastructure  Mostly composite fiber, which is typically 12 single-mode and 24 multi-mode.  Some buildings have T1, 56K, or ISDN (atypical); most connected via fiber · Backbone and Plans  Switched fast Ethernet backbone; 85 segments; 3 aggregation points.  Near term plans to migrate toward gigabit Ethernet with sufficient aggregation points to accommodate distance limits of gigabit Ethernet · External Connectivity and Plans 20mbATM service to the commodity Internet; OC3 ATM to Internet 2.  Chances are, increase bandwidth to the commodity Internet within the next two years.  Commodity ATM service is currently 20 Mbps cell relay service from US West, will soon convert to separate PVC over OC-3 SONet loop used to support Internet 2 connection.
IOWA	· Geography  Single campus; 120 buildings · Physical Infrastructure  12 wiring centers connected by fiber (96 sm, 96 mm); standard size building 24 sm, 12 mm; small building or residence halls 12 sm and 12 mm.  ADEQUATE ·  Backbone and Plans  Campus backbone is combination of ATM OC3 and OC12 along with gigabit Ethernet, fast Ethernet, and Ethernet building uplinks; utilize switches in core and routers two and edges delivering FDDI services.  Approximately 12 routed segments, 12 wiring centers.  Plans to move to more gigabit Ethernet and more switches. · External Connectivity and Plans  2 DS3 commodity Internet 3 shared with University of Iowa and state government; 1 DS3 vBNS shared with the University of Iowa.
UAZ	· Geography Main campus with two other groups (research park 20 miles away; satellite campus); 140 buildings. ·Physical Infrastructure 144 multi-mode fibers to each of 4 centers; off of those wire centers, starred 12 multi-mode to each building; twisted pair to all buildings.  ADEQUATE!!! ·  Backbone and Plans  ATM OC 12 backbone for VBSN project; FDDI backbone connecting remainder of buildings that require higher speed; 13 ATM buildings; 35 FDDI buildings; off of wire center of fast Ethernet or ATM (if ATM or FDDI).  Plan to migrate FDDI and ATM to gigabit Ethernet in the next six months ·External Connectivity and Plans  Have OC3 45 mb on purchased; VBNS 45 mb connection; Internet 2 150 mb to Abilene.  Plus two T1s multi-plexed to JCL, connectivity to national weather and geographical services; 60 connections to within state (hub for state activities and agencies).  In the process of implementing DS3 with ASU (100 miles away), which will be back-up Internet; right now only T1 between them.

	Interbuilding Infrastructure (continued)
UCI	· Geography  Single campus; fibers to buildings from four core locations (fifth planned).  Two non-contiguous locations over WAN links.  T3 link to medical center network.  85 buildings. · Physical Infrastructure  All fiber between core location and subset of buildings on campus.  85 buildings served fiber from four core locations.  Most have 6 strands of single-mode fiber and 12 strands of multi-mode fiber running to them from the core locations.  New installations 12 sm/24 mm.  Each core location has 24 sm/60 mm to each of the other core locations.  ADEQUATE. ·  Backbone and Plans  350+ routed segments and three backbones:  switched 10 Ethernet; FDDI; gigabit Ethernet with a mostly fast Ethernet distribution layer.  Recently built stand-alone gigabit backbone and are in the process of migrating networks from FDDI and switched-10 to gigabit (10% complete) ·  External Connectivity and Plans  Nine campus UC system tied together over a DS3 SMDS network.  Berkeley and UCI provide commercial Internet connectivity through network by acting as drains via two ISP connections (also T3).  This network is nearing the end of its useful life.  See CENIC (www.cenic.org)--network with two parts (northern and southern) each with two OC-12 SONet rings (one for ATM, the other POS).  CENIC is the parent organization, EaIREN-2 is the network itself.  Two parts to be connected over Abilene network.  SMDS DS3 network to go away.
BERK	·  Geography  Mostly a single area in the middle of a city, with one important research station 6 miles away.  A few dozen off-campus locations for offices.  150 buildings ·  Physical Infrastructure  On campus, it's mostly multi-mode fiber.  Off-campus is leased lines form ISDN to T1 and 100mbs Ethernet over fiber.  Half dozen wireless links to off-campus sites · Backbone and Plans FDDI to routers. Approximately 350 routed subnets; 9 main aggregations points.  Near term and medium term we are moving some of the aggregation points out of buildings into Controlled Environment Vaults · External Connectivity and Plans  share 2 DS3 connections to Exodus with the other 9 University of California locations.  We are planning to upgrade to two OC-3 connections to two different ISPs in the next few months.
UCB	·  Geography  Somewhat multiple with east and main campuses; 200 buildings overall, 180 without residence halls. · Physical Infrastructure Fiber, mostly multi- with some single-mode; ADEQUATE · Backbone and Plans  Currently FDDI ring with 250 segments, 12 aggregation points.  Plans to replace the FDDI ring with gigabit Ethernet · External Connectivity and Plans  Two connections:  Cable and Wireless (45mb), and Quest (45mb).  VBNS connection (155mb); upcoming connection to Internet 2; NASA connection; OC3.
UWA	· Geography  One main campus; two branch campuses; 125 buildings · Physical Infrastructure Fiber, multi-mode for 10 and 100mb Ethernet; single mode for GE · Backbone and Plans  Four gigabit Ethernet switches interconnect two dozen Cisco 5505/RSM IP routers, which support approximately 250 user subnets and several server subnets.  Routers located in three router centers on campus.  ATM-free zone.  Cisco 5505s will need to be upgraded to higher capacity GE routers in the next few years · External Connectivity and Plans  Access to four commodity DS3s, a vBNS OC3, and an Abilene OC12.

 

Interbuilding Infrastructure (continued)

WISC

· Geography  Single campus; over 200 buildings. ·  Physical Infrastructure  Three level network:  a core of three super-node buildings interconnected with a 32 strand ring, with node buildings connect to them via 16 strands, and other buildings off these with 8 strands, all multi-mode.  There is additional single mode among the super-nodes and in selected other places, as needed. · Backbone and Plans  Need more single mode fiber to node buildings.  Backbone is all ATM at 155 and 622mb, with LAN emulation for interbuilding departmental connections · External Connectivity and Plans  OC-3 connections to Milwaukee, then to Chicago, and directly to Chicago, terminating at the Ameritech NAP and at our commodity ISP, Nap.Net, respectively.  We share access with UW-Milwaukee and WiscNet, the state R&E network.

Points of Inerest:  There is a general move toward gigabit Ethernet backbones.  Iowa State University and the University of Washington are already there.  The University of Arizona is the one to watch in terms of external connections.  Although the similarities aren't as great, CU-Boulder and the University of Wisconsin seem most alike.

Funding of Network

	Funding of Network
CSU	·  Network Infrastructure Funding  Installation 50% central, 50% end-user.  Model just evolved.  Need to buy a router, someone wants to put a line in, then they need to pay for their share of the backbone, pay a price that seems fair.  One-time backbone connection fee; flat rate for leasing each fiber pair.  Partial cost-recovery mechanism.  Review yearly what fair share is.  Maintenance centrally funded.  In the process of discussing changes.  Moving back toward centrally funded, but on-going central funding hard to get.  May come down to charging on a per-port basis for data access. ·  Desktop Connection Funding  30% central; 50% end-user flat rates; 20% other.  Some departments get central funds, others don't.  In new buildings, window of opportunity to get free horizontal wiring.  Money makers in voice unit subsidize data.  Inadequate and unfair. · Voice Rates  $23.20 monthly/$56 installation · Data Rates $0 monthly / $56 installation
IOWA	·  Network Infrastructure Funding  Installation 80% central funds; 20% end-user fees; flat rates for end-user fees.  Cooperative discussions with IT providers and central administration. Annually review costs of providing service and divide by number of connections.  Operation and maintenance end-user fees.  Current model adequate, but need to increase to provide high bandwidth in the future · Desktop Connection Funding  100% end-user, flat rate  fees; model arrived at through cooperative discussions with IT providers, users, and central administration.  Annually review costs of providing service and divide by number of connections.  Adequate model · Voice Rates $19 monthly/$50 installation ·Data Rates $7 monthly/$50 installation

 

	Funding of Network
UAZ	· Network Infrastructure Funding  Installation 95% central, 5% flat end-user rate.  Historical evolution to get to this model.  Some subsidizing voice of data in past; move to central in 1990.  Flat rates based on cost recovery.  Adequate.  Somewhere between what we'd want to do, somewhat above barebones.  Funding increasing dramatically:  $1 million in buildings, $1 million for external connectivity, $7.5 million for network operations. ·  Desktop Connection Funding  100% flat end-user rate.  Adequate cost recovery mechanism. ·  Voice Rates  $28 monthly/$50 installation · Data Rates $0 monthly/ $155 installation (volume discounts)
UCI	·  Network Infrastructure Funding  Installation 100% centrally funded.  The funding model does not yet fully support the entire network; attempts to pay for the cost of upgrading the access layer, and all general infrastructure upgrades.  Eventually will probably be funded through user fees.  Cost according to number of FTEs in a department.  Not an adequate model. · Desktop Connection Funding  100% flat end-user fees.  Day-to-day costs out of the FTE model (from cost of upgrading edges of the network [access layer] plus cost of network operations and maintenance).  This process being phased in.  Not quite yet adequate for access layer and yearly operational costs; should be eventually.  Working to have an adequate reserve for the data equipment side to fund replacement of equipment.  Intent is to fund the reserve through the FTE model fully.  At this time, UCI runs a deficit which is covered primarily through subsidies.  This situation will correct over the next one-two years as the recharge model we are now using is fully implemented. · Voice Rates  $24 monthly/$70 installation · Data Rates  $0 monthly (covered by FTE model) / $0 installation (covered by BNS to 2 jacks)
BERK	· Network Infrastructure Funding  Installation 70% central, 30% end-user to encourage growth and adoption of the network.  Flat rate for users; fixed amount taken from telephone usage rates ($.5 million per year).  Model determined by some mysterious process.  Maintenance centrally funded, and with a $3/month fee added to each telephone line.  Plans to change (see http://www.chance.berkeley.edu/vcrpb/vice-chance/programs/networkfunding/) · Desktop Connection Funding  100% departmental flat rates.  Idea was to have the departments cover the one-time installation costs, but not charge for any usage in order to encourage the growth and adaptation of the network.  All installations over a year are averaged out to determine the flat rate.  Not adequate--will implement a flat monthly rate in July of 2000. · Voice Rates  $21 monthly/ $200 installation · Data Rates  $0 monthly/$500 installation
UCB	· Network Infrastructure Funding  Installation 70% centrally funded; 5% end-user; 25% telephone profits to fund fiber. · Desktop Connection Funding  50% central, 50% end-user.  Fell into model--fear of raising the ire of the customers to charge what it really costs.  Flat rate; determine what we can get away with charging, but never enough. · Voice Rates  $21 monthly/$70 installation · Data Rates $3.40 monthly/$275 installation
UWA	· Network Infrastructure Funding Installation--departments requesting a connection pay a one-time installation fee; everything else is centrally funded, although voice helps pay for some shared infrastructure.  Good question how we arrived at this funding mechanism.  Plans to change model; need to look at what's politically sellable for the future. ·  Desktop Connection Funding  See above.  ·   Voice Rates not available ·  Data Rates $0 monthly / $200 installation

 

Funding of Network (continued)

WISC

· Network Infrastructure Funding  installation 100% central; maintenance 75% central, 25% user fees.  Based on size of pipe and not usage.  Set a rate a long time ago that has been difficult to increase to cover increasing costs.  Inadequate.  In the short run will incrementally raise fees, but waiting for better technology to measure traffic before instituting usage charges. · Desktop Connection Funding  Wiring was paid by state construction funds (not in University budget).  Departments want control of their LANS and there were no central funds for this purpose.  Electronics funded by departments. · Voice Rates  $18 monthly / $0 installation · Data Rates  not applicable (per building fee based on pipe size)

Points of Interest:  The funding models, and rates, are all over the board.  Installation is primarily central (Colorado State University is the exception there).  In general, institutions are using cost recovery mechanisms as the basis for their user-end fees (which are flat).  There is some subsidizing of data by voice profits.  Once again, the University of Arizona is the one to watch--that institution is receiving remarkable amounts of funding for its network.

Conclusions

In general, those institutions that have centrally funded networks (and usually $0 monthly fees for end-users) are moving toward, or at least thinking about moving toward, end-user rates.  Usage rates are based on any number of elements, including number of FTEs in a department, and the size of the pipe hooked up to the department.  Usage rates appear to be attractive, but not yet implemented.

All institutions recognize the political realities of end-user fees, and many are reluctant to push for such fees, or for raising them to adequately fund the model, because of the uproar that would ensue.  There is no such outcry about telephone rates, which have historically been accepted as acceptable payment for service.  Data service, however, is viewed by departments to be an inalienable right that ought to be funded centrally.  For this reason, among others, most institutions do not seem to be charging enough, if anything at all, to cover the current costs of network operations, maintenance, and new connections, let alone a major upgrade to the backbone.

Although the University of Wisconsin has been most like CU-Boulder in other regards, they may not be the institution to emulate as we develop a funding model:  much of their wiring has been paid for by state construction funds, and their current funding model is inadequate to cover increasing costs of the network.

Appendix E

Alliance Network Principles

Definition:  Alliance Networks are data communication networks managed and operated by a department independently from the centrally supported and managed networks.  In a typical situation, the department provides the networking infrastructure, including wiring and data communication switches.  The data communication switches connect to the campus network maintained by ITS to provide campus and Internet network access.  The department also provides human support and operating cost resources for its own network.

Principles:

·   The campus recognizes the need and purposefulness of allowing some units to develop and/or manage IT network infrastructure (including station and riser components).

·   Alliance networks must be approved by the designated campus authority:  IT Council, the Chancellor’s Executive Committee, and/or the campus CIO.

·   Units overseeing alliance networks will be charged a campus network connection and use fee.  This fee will vary depending on the speed and capacity requirements, and actual usage of the campus network.

·   Units with existing alliance networks will be given a credit against future fees.  The amount of the credit will be determined by an appraisal of the current infrastructure value.  This will be true for alliance networks approved for continued operation, and those determined to be abandoned or turned over to ITS

·    All alliance networks will be review for necessity and burden on networking resources.

 

Criteria to Qualify for Alliance Network Status

1) Department has a programmatic need for networking resources not available on the campus network.  An example would be a research department that has extraordinary bandwidth needs. –OR–

2) There is a programmatic need for networking resources in a controlled environment that provides hands-on learning experiences for students (e.g., ITLL). –AND–

3) The department has the financial resources and staff with the technical expertise to install, manage, maintain, and operate an alliance network that meets campus technical and security standards.