Telecommunications

1
Telecommunications Data Networking Futures

• Scott Baily, Director of ACNS

2
Theme

• When the horse is dead, get off! var., incl.
  Rosita Perez and Robin L. Silverman

3
CSUs Telephone Environment
4
FY 09 Monthly Cost for Basic Service

• Diminishing use of phones in residence halls
• FY 10 loss of revenue 250k , but costs will be
  held constant or reduced for on-campus phones.
• FY 11 may lose an additional 200k.

5
(No Transcript)
6
FY 09 Cost Comparison with CSU Peers forBasic
Service
7
FY 09 BSVM Cost Comparison with Peers
8
History

• Early 80s Telephones transitioned to cost
  recovery to limit to necessary installations
• 1992 10-yr bond issued to pay for telephone
  switch and cable plant _at_12.6 M
• FY 02 03, trade telephone costs for internet
  costs after paying off the telephone switch debt
• Cost neutral to academic departments, savings to
  non-academic departments, on average
• Cost recovery ensures non-centrally funded units
  pay their fair share (30)

9
Strategy

• After FY 00, use Telecom reserve for the
  following projects
• Build the data infrastructure
• Keep the telephone switch up to date
• Purchase equipment necessary to build sustain
  the data infrastructure
• OTDR, fiber splicer, fiber splicing van,
  trailer,
• Expand and sustain the E911 infrastructure

10
CUs Fiber Splicing Van
CSUs Fiber Splicing Van
11
Avg. 521k
12
(No Transcript)
13
Campus Rewire A Very Successful Activity

• AS.12 building wires/rewires of about 200
  buildings
• On-campus fiber buildings, backbone
• Off-campus fiber inter-campus, WAN
• Regional optical network
• BiSON ring at Gbps (more later)
• In a cost neutral manner, the campus has been
  provided
• Excellent telephone service
• Excellent physical communications infrastructure
• Excellent Internet access
• While maintaining the lowest basic service costs
  among all of our peers, with no additional
  funding!

14
Telephone Switch End of Life in 2010

• Was 2011
• Nortel into chapter 11 late January 2009
• Apparently, can now pay Nortel 30k for a
  one-year extension until 2011
• Can keep operating for some time after that
• At increased risk
• But, should have
• An alternative VoIP solution in deployment
• Spare parts

15
Transition to VoIP

• VoIP is the only feasible technology
• Need to upgrade and harden the data network
• Cheaper? Maybe
• An integrated, better user experience!
• Two candidate solutions being explored
• SIPX a standards-based solution
• Next-gen MS Office Communications Server
• Will select one within a year or two
• Continuing technology exploration projects

16
Desirable Attributes of VoIP

• Low-cost, SIP phones anticipated lt50
• Mid-range administrative SIP phones
• Like todays Meridian phones
• Higher cost, unified communications devices
• Integrated unified communications voice, video,
  instant messaging,
• Presence tracks your availability
• Enhanced directory services to include multiple
  means of communication/collaboration

17
Networking

• Intertwined with telephone costs
• Where do we want to be in 5 years?

18
Networking Policy

• Central IT/Facilities wires/rewires buildings
• Central IT deploys, operates, maintains and
  secures WAN and core campus network
• Has grown into an extremely complex endeavor
• IT Security, VLANs, redundancy, load balancing,
  end-to-end performance, firewalls
• Departmental IT staff own the LANs, and have
  access to closets and network switches

19
Practice

• Networks are now very capable, very complex
  systems that must be carefully managed
• Border router 14K lines of configuration
• Internet routing table now over 270K routes
• 3-4 times per year, departmental IT staff have
  caused significant network disruptions
• Misconfiguration, inexperience, etc.
• Life and safety issues exist
• Core network availability gt 99, want 99.9

20
BB Pushing 1 Gbps Bandwidth Limits
21
Inventory of Networking Assets

• Where are we now?
• Where should we be going over the next 5-10 years?

22

• BiSON Bi-State
• Optical Network
• - CSU
• NCAR
• NOAA
• UWyo

23
CSU Optical Connectivity
24
Now
25
Comm. Rooms/Ethernet Switches

• 380 Communications Rooms
• 670 Ethernet Switches
• 30K ports in use!!!
• 43 of switches are outdated (no longer made)
• gt 100 are more than 5 years old
• There is no refresh cycle, switches are the
  responsibility of the department
• All wire installed is Cat 5E or better, capable
  of 1 Gbps to the wall jack
• Every circuit tested for performance!

26
Needed Enhancements

• VoIP Must harden the network
• Add redundancy
• Manage centrally, as an infrastructure
• Simpler, overall less expensive
• Will also improve availability
• Add Capacity Migrate backbone to 10 Gigabit
• Extend Capacity 1 Gbps to major buildings
• Requires switch upgrades
• Support Research a shared responsibility
• Accomplished via all of the above

27
Why We Need Greater Capacity

• More video (inauguration, Facebook, etc.)
• HD video, videoconferencing, and audio
• Growth in research requirements
• It may take us another 10 years to complete the
  next phase we should start soon

28
Time for a New Cost Model

• Current model makes cost increase with capacity
• Cost limits capacity, even inside CSU
• Prohibits a sensible architecture
• Inequitable and unsustainable ?
• Propose a simpler model, based on common
  infrastructure (charge per FTE/yr?)
• Basic service to desk 100 Mbps
• Possible premium service 1 Gbps to desk
• Basic service to large buildings 1 Gbps

29
Networking Costs
30
Costs for Infrastructure Upgrade

• Hardware
• Upgrade border 250k, 25k/yr
• Upgrade core 515k, 21k/yr
• Upgrade in MDFs 1.63M, 12.5k/yr
• Upgrade IDFs 1.73M, 35k/yr
• TOTAL 4.125M, 93.5k/yr
• Add 2 networking FTE
• 100k/yr. cost neutral in steady state
• May be able to envelop these costs in telephone
  charges also, some covered via network chargeback

31
For Discussion Next Time

• Do we reduce basic phone service rates in 2010
  and defer progress?
• How far do we go?
• How fast to we go?
• How much do we risk?
• How do we decide on the above?
• We welcome an opportunity to come back for this
  discussion

32
Discussion

• Is this on target?
• Questions/comments?

33
Appendix

• Telecom projects physical infrastructure

34
Project Details Phys. Infra.

• FY 99-00
• OIS Video 142,113
• AS-12 47,000
• Clark 105,000
• FY 00-01
• Wagar 42,000
• Ayleswsorth 73,000
• Atmos Sci Sim Lab 6,313
• Weber 17,670
• UV Phase 5 15,529
• FY 01-02
• OFCHS 25,507
• CIRA 13,273
• Chem Bio 5,188
• Industrial Science 1,162
• Weber AS.12 3,000

• FY 01-02 (contd) - Fiber
• Glover 3,019
• Green Hall 2,480
• Foothills 6,615
• VTH 2,100
• Rampart/Overland 2,175
• Foothills 11,276
• NRRC 972
• NWRC 1,720
• FY 02-03
• Tunnel Project 50,007
• Gugg/Chem-Bio/VTH 1,349
• Chem Bio 2,024
• VTH 5,000
• Foothills Generator 5,383
• AS.12 Projects 299,000

35
Project Details Infrastructure (contd)

• FY 03-04
• Housing 13,253
• Tunnel Project 44,288
• MRB CSUIITE 4,109
• ARBL to AIDL 11,890
• Aggie South 5,023
• AS.12 Projects 369,768
• CDOT 23,493
• Campus Fiber
• Pitkin Ave 17,540
• Centre Ave 15,917
• Aggie North 5,209
• Campus Ring 151,237

• FY 04-05
• CSU/UW fiber 185,000
• CSUIITE Projects 63,134
• CDOT 31,027
• Tunnel Project 380
• Campus Fiber
• Campus Ring 8,887
• Misc. 27,199
• FY 05-06
• AS.12 Projects 15,680
• Campus fiber
• Hughes 2,007
• Misc 116,273

36
Project Details Infrastructure (contd)

• FY 06-07
• CDOT 1,420
• Campus fiber
• Misc 59,921
• 555 S. Howes 8,119
• Rampart Rd T 5,347
• N. Lateral Loop 18,795
• Pitkin Street 3,400
• 1500 UV 10,484
• FY 07-08
• CSUIITE 30,000
• CDOT 1,539
• Glover 16,828
• GSB 60,000

• FY 07-08 (contd) - fiber
• Misc Fiber Projects 55,250
• Overland Trail 47,309
• 1500 UV 43,027
• FY 08-09 (budgeted)
• CSUIITE 100,000
• Fiber Projects 150,000
• CDOT 30,000
• Adesta 215,000