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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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