RE: Education/Research alliances
"Hrybyk, Michael" <[email protected]> Thu, 22 May 2003 10:41:35 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.rep |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C32089.636A032A Content-Type: text/plain WRT BCNET, we have built our research network with a set of REPs as an essential piece in each metro area. The universities are connected with dark fibre to each metro REP. The provincial research and education network is then completed by connecting the REPs with high speed circuits (OC48). These circuits are only available to univ participants rather than all REP connectors. We call REPs transit exchanges (TXs), as the main purpose is to get transit services for TX-connected sites. The name distinguished these facilities from pure peering exchanges. But the acronyms are less important than the semantics. REPs and TXs are basically the same thing (I think). If REPs are only for peering, then TXs are different beasts. In specific, we have TXs in Victoria, Vancouver, and Prince George. Other munis (Saanich, Kamloops, Coquitlam) are attempting to build them as well. The higher ed system will construct a network using these TXs, rather than acquiring a complete private network from a supplier. All of our universities purchase transit service from suppliers at the TX. We have found that the incremental cost to purchase transit in Prince George (> 400 mi north, thru some serious mountains) is minor relative to pricing in Vancouver. In other words, it is very cost effective to serve northern universities via Prince George from transit suppliers directly rather than backhauling to Vancouver, as we have traditionally done. The CANARIE CA*NET4 connection is made at the VANTX and VICTX. This allows eligible sites to get easy access to this network and Internet2 as well. We specifically did *not* put TXs (aka Gigapops) at university sites, choosing to place them in facilities close to carrier/supplier access points instead. This is not the usual practice, although the PNWGP in Seattle is a fine example of doing this. We have carried the same approach to the smaller centres as well, which is atypical. Building a REP or TX simply as a one-off exercise in a region is interesting but not sufficient. One should also ask an organization (such as a university *system* or a large regional corporation) might best use a set of TXs to build a functional network. The answer to this helps determine the technology necessary. We recently held a TX workshop here for all carriers/suppliers and connected sites. It was very well attended, and a large part of the discussion was around rules-of-engagement and governance. One should not ignore these issues. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Jere Retzer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May 22, 2003 8:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [REPforum] Education/Research alliances NWAX, www.nwax.net <http://www.nwax.net> is co-located with the Portland Research and Education Network (PREN), an entity that Portland higher ed created to connect to Internet2. It is not a gigapop but connects to PNWGP. We can also connect to the University of Oregon gigapop via NWAX. I think these associations have been major assets to the exchange because for one they represent lots of potential eyeballs and peering traffic. What do you have in mind as far as "investing in developing these relationships?" >>> [email protected] 05/21/03 10:40PM >>> Having recently (2 years) joined the ranks of the education/research community, I have found some significant benefits for the Utah regional exchange through affiliation with the education/research community. I'm curious how many other REPs have strong affiliations with regional education/research institutions, or have attempted to develop those affiliations? Would your REP be willing to invest in developing those relationships and engaging your local higher-ed institutions in supporting your project? Pete. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C32089.636A032A Content-Type: text/html <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 12pt Verdana; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px"> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003>WRT BCNET, we have built our research network with a set of REPs as an essential piece in each metro area. The universities are connected with dark fibre to each metro REP. The provincial research and education network is then completed by connecting the REPs with high speed circuits (OC48). These circuits are only available to univ participants rather than all REP connectors.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003>We call REPs transit exchanges (TXs), as the main purpose is to get transit services for TX-connected sites. The name distinguished these facilities from pure peering exchanges. But the acronyms are less important than the semantics. REPs and TXs are basically the same thing (I think). If REPs are only for peering, then TXs are different beasts.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003>In specific, we have TXs in Victoria, Vancouver, and Prince George. Other munis (Saanich, Kamloops, Coquitlam) are attempting to build them as well. The higher ed system will construct a network using these TXs, rather than acquiring a complete private network from a supplier.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003>All of our universities purchase transit service from suppliers at the TX. We have found that the incremental cost to purchase transit in Prince George (> 400 mi north, thru some serious mountains) is minor relative to pricing in Vancouver. In other words, it is very cost effective to serve northern universities via Prince George from transit suppliers directly rather than backhauling to Vancouver, as we have traditionally done.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003>The CANARIE CA*NET4 connection is made at the VANTX and VICTX. This allows eligible sites to get easy access to this network and Internet2 as well. We specifically did *not* put TXs (aka Gigapops) at university sites, choosing to place them in facilities close to carrier/supplier access points instead. This is not the usual practice, although the PNWGP in Seattle is a fine example of doing this. We have carried the same approach to the smaller centres as well, which is atypical.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003>Building a REP or TX simply as a one-off exercise in a region is interesting but not sufficient. One should also ask an organization (such as a university *system* or a large regional corporation) might best use a set of TXs to build a functional network. The answer to this helps determine the technology necessary.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003>We recently held a TX workshop here for all carriers/suppliers and connected sites. It was very well attended, and a large part of the discussion was around rules-of-engagement and governance. One should not ignore these issues.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=693412317-22052003>Mike</SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Jere Retzer [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> May 22, 2003 8:36 AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [REPforum] Education/Research alliances<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>NWAX, <A href="http://www.nwax.net">www.nwax.net</A> is co-located with the Portland Research and Education Network (PREN), an entity that Portland higher ed created to connect to Internet2. It is not a gigapop but connects to PNWGP. We can also connect to the University of Oregon gigapop via NWAX. I think these associations have been major assets to the exchange because for one they represent lots of potential eyeballs and peering traffic. What do you have in mind as far as "investing in developing these relationships?"<BR><BR>>>> [email protected] 05/21/03 10:40PM >>><BR>Having recently (2 years) joined the ranks of the <BR>education/research community, I have found some significant <BR>benefits for the Utah regional exchange through affiliation <BR>with the education/research community.<BR><BR>I'm curious how many other REPs have strong affiliations <BR>with regional education/research institutions, or have <BR>attempted to develop those affiliations?<BR><BR>Would your REP be willing to invest in developing those<BR>relationships and engaging your local higher-ed institutions<BR>in supporting your project?<BR><BR>Pete.<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C32089.636A032A--