Network Technical Planning Committee Report Great Plains Network 4/27/2010

Report Contents Bandwidth projections Recommendations to meet the CPS demand Committed headroom triggers for adding bandwidth Network related organizations, meetings, etc. to engage Network architecture & design Technical & management monitoring/reporting Network policies Next steps

Bandwidth Projections

Cost-Effective Ways to Meet Commodity Bandwidth Needs 2 nd 10g to I2 in production NLR/I2 CPS Transit Rail Pilot initiated Identified internal GPN Connector Peering opportunities and began implementation Other opportunities to be researched, including: Group Commodity Internet purchases and bandwidth sharing Direct peering with other R&E Networks Other approaches that become available – this is a very dynamic area Concern: TR/CPS consolidation will increase CPS traffic on our I2 circuits Sub-committee appointed to look at this in-depth

Committed ‘Headroom’ Trigger for Adding Bandwidth 95% Percentile = 6g on a monthly basis  At trigger point, Initiate research and recommendation for best course of action

Identify network-related organizations, meetings, etc. that GPN should engage Initial list developed Priorities and what level of engagement will be completed

Network Architecture & Design Conference call held with I2 re: their DR/BC plans/approaches We are working on a 2 nd GPN PoP scenario  May be more feasible for each connector to work with I2 on an alternate connection location that is geographically advantageous and meets their individual DR/BC requirements

Network Architecture & Design (2) Requirements being developed & prioritized for Layer 2 and Layer 3 services  Should we formalize standards on how GPN Connectors connect – i.e. all will connect to I2 via Layer 2 and peer with each other via Layer 3? Requirements will then drive various scenarios for Layer 2 and Layer 3 services Pro/cons Equipment configurations Costs Etc.

Network Architecture & Design (3) Draft requirements include: Resiliency Flexibility “Speed to respond” to request for new services Layer3 server connections for network performance tool kits, web servers, etc. Backplane throughput for new purchases can handle 40 and/or 100g interfaces GPN NOC will flush out the scenarios based upon the agreed to requirements  NOTE: priorities critical as some requirements may be in contention – i.e. resiliency versus flexibility

Technical Monitoring & Reporting For Layer 2 Services  Measurement Reports to member organizations regarding utilization on specific transit VLANs  Monitoring Alerts / notifications when "upstream" interfaces are experiencing outages or failures. For Layer 3 Services  Measurement Member-accessible graphs for individual routed VLANs Provide both average and maximum throughput for standard time periods  Monitoring Alerts / notifications when "upstream" interfaces are currently offline or experiencing errors. Monitoring: Active monitoring of BGP sessions between GPN members and the GPN router

Management Monitoring & Reporting ‘User-friendly' graphical dashboard with selectable reporting periods 95% percentile is likely the best measurement Aggregate utilization for each I2 and ESnet circuit Aggregate utilization by GPN Connector by circuit Aggregate utilization by service: CPS, SEGP, ION, research, etc regardless of connection method (i.e. layer 2 or layer 3) For each service:  utilization by GPN Connector - for instance - how much CPS is each connector using? GPN Connector to GPN connector peering traffic utilization  To let us know how much we are off-loading from our 'external' circuits and can be used to GPN 'marketing' as a value-add, cost-saving service Standard set of tools so that we can easily add new circuits, services, etc.

Network Policies Review AUP wrt networking use Security – currently member’s responsibility -- under what conditions can GPN NOC shut down a member’s connection? ION reservation policy – how much bandwidth can be reserved for what length of time  What is the process to request exceptions? Should each GPN Connector be ‘guaranteed' a minimum amount of bandwidth? Should each GPN Connector be ‘guaranteed' a minimum number of ports? Network Tookit access and usage  a GPN Connector throughput testing could have a potential adverse affect on the entire network  What data should be public? Available to GPN Connectors?

Next Steps June 1: Network Technical Planning Committee will work on remaining items and meet in Kansa City to finalize draft recommendations June 2: (a.m.): Draft recommendations will be reviewed at a joint GPN Network Program and Technical Committee Mtg June 2 (afternoon): Draft report will be made to the GPN EC June 3: Panel session will discuss the report during the GPN Annual Conference August: Final report presented to the GPN Network Program Committee and approval, and then to the GPN Executive Committee August 15: FY11 implementation will be developed and implemented