Ethernet Switch Replacement UTFAB Presentation 21 February, 2017 UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017 Ethernet Switches What: Specialized electronics attaching networked devices to Campus/Internet resources Why: Provides basic foundation for supporting the everyday missions of the campus Where: Located on every floor (typically) of every building Who: Managed by Network Operations Center (NOC) staff in ACNS UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

Building Networks: “The Other Utility” Provides Service to: Computers Wireless APs Surveillance cameras Alarm systems Life & Safety Devices Card key access Time clocks VoIP phones Everything! Ethernet Switches UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

Types of building switches 1U – 1 Rack Unit 1.75"height Supports up to 24 or 48 data "ports".   Used on the "edge" of the network only to feed small areas Typically one power supply, limited speed and capability Chassis 3U (5.25" height), 6U (10.5" height) Modular allowing for more power, speeds, overall capability and adaptability Typically used for a building's main links or feeding higher density areas UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017 What is the issue? Years ago, departments purchased networking gear and managed it internally Now, all campus networks are managed centrally, by ACNS Unlike classrooms and Wi-Fi, there is no funding mechanism for refreshing Ethernet switch technology UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

Old switches still work, so who cares? Old switches lack features and functionality E.g. gigabit connectivity, secured access control, Power over Ethernet, advanced capabilities, etc. Difficult to find replacement parts (fans, power supplies, etc.) Switch vendors don’t update code on End-of-Life (EOL) Equipment Just like computers, these too are susceptible to security vulnerabilities and compromise UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017 How big is the problem? CSU has 38,000 network-attached computers, printers, and other devices Excludes Residence Halls and Wi-Fi devices 950 switches make these 38K devices “work” Estimated $3M total replacement value 100 went EOL more than 7 years ago, ~ 8,500 ports 650 went EOL 2-7 years ago, ~ 45,000 ports 200 (~ 21%) are "modern”, ~ 13,000 ports UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017 Why bring this to UTFAB? President’s Student Financial Advisory Council Asked to identify significant needs of the campus Challenged to “Think Big” 4,055 Switch Ports have been identified as direct support of teaching and learning Supporting labs, classrooms, study areas, etc. Opportunity to recognize this as a significant problem, and to “own” a proportional piece of the solution UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

Replacement Cost Scenarios Current Inventory 5-year Cycle 6-year Cycle 7-year Cycle Campus $2,600,000 $520,000 $433,333 $371,429 Student $194,600 $38,920 $32,433 $27,800 Telecom $360,000 $72,000 $60,000 $51,429 UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017 Recommendation 1 Seek one-time funding to Replace end-of-life switches, even if over multiple fiscal years Develop a funding strategy to get everything on a 7-year replacement cycle in the interim Would appreciate UTFAB’s verbal commitment to participating in the student portion of an overall replacement cycle UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017 Recommendation 2 Should Recommendation 1 fail, Consider funding student component on a 7-year replacement cycle Estimated at 6.2% of the current inventory Contingent upon the campus making a similar commitment ACNS to provide annual report showing progress made, current pricing, and any other changes affecting replacement cycle estimates UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

UTFAB Funding Criteria 1. Benefit as many students as possible All CSU students likely to benefit 2. Ability to effectively utilize the fee Your decision 3. Not funded by CFT Incidental/Inconsistemt 4. Adherence to budget and accountability 5. Potential for direct student use Correct 6. Effort, thought & clarity in the plan 7. Quantitative usage data 8. Financial co-sponsorship 93.8% Central, 6.2% UTFAB 9. Central/distributed balance 10. Not part of other UTFAB projects UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017

Discussion and Questions Are most welcome UTFAB Proposal 21 February, 2017