Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:34:34 +0200
From: ullmann(a)dfn.dbp.de
Subject: EBONE integration scenario
To: ou(a)rare.nl
Message-id: <920831143433*/S=ullmann/PRMD=dfn/ADMD=dbp/C=de/@MHS>
X400-Received: by mta relay.surfnet.nl in /PRMD=surf/ADMD=400net/C=nl/;
Relayed; Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:35:44 +0200
X400-Received: by /PRMD=GmD/ADMD=DbP/C=DE/; Relayed; Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:34:27
+0200
X400-Received: by /PRMD=DFN/ADMD=DBP/C=DE/; Relayed; Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:34:34
+0200
X400-Originator: ullmann(a)dfn.dbp.de
X400-Recipients: ou(a)rare.nl
X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=DFN/ADMD=DBP/C=DE/;dfnberlin2251920831143434-GXm]
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
X-Envelope-to: HWG
OU-SC, 24 August 1992
Report to the OU shareholder meeting on the EBONE integration scenario
======================================================================
I. Task: The OU Steering Committee (OUSC) had the task to identify an
------- integration scenario for the IP service which is presently
been organised under the name EBONE. During that discussion
a statement from th EBONE management committee has been sent
to the OUSC (see annex 2).
This document describes a possible scenario to incorporate
EBONE in the OU Business Plan. The General Assembly is asked
to decide upon this scenario as the answer to the statement of
the EBONE management committee.
II. External Material Used:
--------------------------
1) Ebone Line and Site Installation Specification
Ebone Action Team (B.Stockman); 24 February 1992;
2) Management and Operation of the Ebone
B.Stockman; 13 April 1992;
3) Ebone '92 IP Routing Model
T.Bates, P.Lothberg; June 1992.
While 1) gives an overview on the technical details, 2) deals with
operational management procedures and 3) indicates the construction
principles of the Ebone configuration.
In addition to this material facts and figures about Ebone have
been supplied by several members of the Ebone Management Committee
(Dennis Jennings and Kees Neggers). These figures are the basis of
the cost analysis described in Annex 1.
III. Results:
------------
2. General OU Multiprotocol Service
It is proposed that the OU should in the context of the Multiprotocol
Backbone Service (MPBS) offer three different types of access:
a) native X.25 (through access points P1i, i=1,2,3...; see fig.1);
b) native IP - pilot version through EMPP (through access points
P2i, i=1,2,3...);
c) native IP - through the existing Ebone structure (through access
points P3i, i=1,2,3...).
The commercial conditions for P1i and P2i are described in the
umbrella contract between PTT Telecom and -at present- RARE.
Both IP offerings are connected via two interface boxes (IF1 and
IF2); the whole MPBS of the OU can then be viewed in the following
way:
+----------------------MPBS box----------------------+
I +-----------------EMPP box-----------------+ I
P11---o----I I----o---P21
. I I .
. I I .
P1i---o----I I----o---P2j
I +------------------------------------------+ I
I I I I
I +-----+ +-----+ I
I I IF1 I I IF2 I I
I +-----+ +-----+ I
I I I I
I +------------------------------------------+ I
I I +-------------Ebone Kernel-----------+ I I
I I I I I----o---P31
I I I I I .
I I I I I .
I I I I I----o---P3k
I I +------------------------------------+ I I
I +-----------------Ebone box----------------+ I
+----------------------------------------------------+
fig.1 General OU Multiprotocol Service
According to 1) the Ebone Kernel box comprises at present the
following configuration with the line# taken from 1):
Stockholm Amsterdam CERN
+-----2.2--------------*-------2.1-------*
I I
2.3 2.5
*-------------------2.4------------------*
London Montpellier
fig.2 Ebone Kernel box
After an initial period the OU will base its IP service offering on
one system, and it will take the results of the EMPP evaluation
into account in its choice of system.
Until that moment customers are free to choose which IP services
they want to buy, EMPP and/or Ebone.
3. Organisational Structure
The OU will sell the IP service based on EBONE (P3i) to customers
on a contractual basis. That implies towards the customers that
the EBONE system is exactly specified in advance and can only be
changed in agreement with the parties affected by these changes.
The OU will subcontract suppliers of lines and sites that houses
and manages Ebone Boundary Systems (EBS). It is recommended to keep
these contractual relations as light weight as possible as far as
a) the formal relation between the OU and the EBS sites
respectively,
b) the OU and the organisations responsible for the lines,
c) the OU and the organisation that employs the operational staff
are concerned.
It is assumed that operational procedures are taken from existing
descriptions.
4. Quality of Service Guarantees
It is recognized that the service provided through the Ebone
structure has no well defined quality of service parameters and
there are no guarantees for which the customer of the OU can make
responsible either the OU or one EBS site or one organisation in
charge of line provision or provision of operational staff.
The Ebone consortium will be invited to describe on short term the
present service levels as good as possible in order to allow the
OU management to define the actions required to maintain these
service levels.
5. Cost Analysis and Tariffs
In Annex 1 a model is presented describing the present Ebone box in
terms of backbone lines, gateways, access lines, equipment and
staff; all based on a number of assumptions. These assumptions have
been communicated with some members of the Ebone Management
Committee but not yet with the other participants in Ebone. For
that reason these assumptions have a preliminary character.
The model is more or less the same as the model used for the OU
business case. After the assumptions it is built up in three parts:
the requested access services from the customers, the costs of the
services and the allocation of costs (tariffs). The methodology
used for the allocation of costs is equivalent with the one used in
the RARE- PTT Telecom contract for the EMPP box.
The tariffs for the IP services provided through the EMPP- and
Ebone structures are different and not cross-subsidized.
A warning has to be made that it is not possible to make a straight
comparison in terms of price and performance between EMPP IP
services and Ebone IP services due to the lack of service level
guarantees within Ebone.
6. Customer Base
The OU will accept present Ebone customers as customers of the OU
provided that:
a - the purpose and usage of the connection is in line with the OU
mission statement and
b - no third party traffic, neither international nor national, is
allowed without written permission from the OU management.
6. Migration
After an initial period the OU will base its IP service offering on
one system. This initial period will end as soon as this intended
single systeem has demonstrated its operational capabilities and is
able to supply the customers with the same or better services
against the same or better prices. After this initial period the OU
management will decide upon the migration scenario. The costs for
the migration from the Ebone to the final MPBS production phase are
seen as transition costs which has to be covered by a (special) OU
budget line. These costs comprise for example parallel lines etc.
It must be possible to cancel lines at the shortest possible time;
i.e. Ebone backbone and access lines have to be based on contracts
for an initial period of at most one year with a cancellation
period afterwards of at most three months.
7. Clearing of Costs
Based on the cost allocation scheme in Annex 1 the OU will invoice
in advance on a quarterly basis the Ebone customers for who the
tariff is higher than the total of accepted costs. The OU will
reimburse in the second month of the actual quarter the Ebone
customers for who the tariff is lower than the total of the
accepted costs. Based on this clearing method the working capital
needed by the OU to accept the commercial responsibility for the
Ebone services will not exceed 200 KECU.
Annex 1 Operational Unit Ebone Cost Analysis 1993 (in ECU)
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. Assumptions
1.1 Backbone:
Status Link Speed Real Accept. Covered by:
Aug. 92 costs costs
Operat. Stockholm-Amsterdam 512 275000 275000 NORDUnet
Operat. Amsterdam-Geneva 512 270000 270000 SURFnet
Operat. Geneva-Montpellier 256 141000 141000 RENATER
On ordr Montpellier-London 256 147000 147000 RENATER
Operat. London-Stockholm 256 178000 178000 NORDUnet
100% of real costs will be accepted.
Total accepted costs backbone: 1011000
1.2 Gateways:
Status Location Speed Real Accepted Covered by:
costs costs
Planned EMPP-London 256 0 100000 JANET
Planned EMPP-Amsterdam 256 N/A 0 PTT/Telecom
Operat. HEPnet-Geneva 512 N/A 0 CERN
100% of the (virtual) gateway costs EMPP London will be accepted.
Gateway costs EMPP Amsterdam will be carried by EMPP.
Gateway costs HEPnet CERN will be carried by CERN. HEPnet is for 1993 accepted
as a peer connection to Ebone.
Total accepted costs gateways: 100000
1.3 Access lines:
Status Link Speed Real Accept. Covered by:
Aug. 92 costs costs
Operat. Amsterdam Madrid 64 82700 62025 Rediris
On ordr Amsterdam Munich 128 98600 73950 ECRC
On ordr Amsterdam Vienna 128 107600 80700 ACOnet
Unknown Geneva-Athens 64 80000 60000 ARIANEt
Operat. Geneva-Tel Aviv (*) 64 40725 40725 ILAN
On ordr Geneva-Vienna 256 182500 136875 ACOnet
Operat. Montpellier-Crete 9.6 42600 31950 GREARN
Operat. Montpellier-Leuven 64 44200 33150 Univ.Leuven
75% of costs will be accepted; 25% is regarded as local loop.
(*) Tel Aviv half channel European side is 100% accepted.
Total accepted costs access lines: 519375
1.4 Equipment:
There are at present four Ebone Boundary Systems (EBS) plus one at CERN.
Investments per EBS are 30000; depreciation in 4 years; maintenance 10% per
annum.
Costs local equipment CERN will be carried by CERN.
Accepted depreciation costs: 30000 p/a
Accepted maintenance costs: 12000 p/a
Depreciation costs and maintenance costs are at present covered by several
parties.
1.5 Staff:
Central staff: 2 fte, 50000/fte. Costs 100000 covered by NORDUnet.
Local staff per EBS: .25 fte, 50000/fte. Costs 37500 covered by EBS sites.
100% operational staff costs will be accepted but local staff CERN
will be carried by CERN.
Total accepted costs staff: 137500
2 Requested services
2.1 Relative weights access speeds:
speed access points
9.6 0.5
64 1
128 1.8
256 3.5
512 6
1000 8
2000 11.4
2.2 Present customer demand:
Customer access 1993 points status
NORDUnet 512 6 OK
SURFnet 512 6 OK
JANET 256 3.5 ?
RENATER 256 3.5 OK
EARN 64 1 ?
EUnet 64 1 ?
ACOnet 128 1.8 ?
ACOnet 256 3.5 ?
Rediris 64 1 OK upgrade planned
Un.Leuven 64 1 ?
GREARN 9.6 0.5 ?
ILAN 64 1 ?
ECRC 128 1.8 OK
SWITCH 256 3.5 ?
Total points 36.1
3. Costs
Accepted costs:
Backbone lines 1011000
Gateways 100000
Access lines 519375
Equipment 42000
Central staff 100000
Local staff 37500
Total accepted costs: 1809875
Total accesspoints 36.1
Costs per accesspoint: 50135
4. Tariffs
Proposed tariff 1993:
Customer tariff 93 minus accepted costs to pay:
per annum backb./ access equipm./
gateway lines staff
NORDUnet 300810 453000 110500 -262690
SURFnet 300810 270000 44000 -13190
JANET 175473 100000 12500 62973
RENATER 175473 288000 12500 -125027
EARN 50135 50135
EUnet 50135 50135
ACOnet 90243 80700 9543
ACOnet 175473 136875 38598
Rediris 50135 62025 -11890
Un.Leuven 50135 33150 16985
GREARN 25068 31950 -6882
ILAN 50135 40725 9410
ECRC 90243 73950 16293
ARIADNE 50135 60000 -9865
SWITCH 175473 175473
total 1809875 1111000 519375 179500 0
Annex 2: Statement EBONE MC
---------------------------
The Operational Unit Steering Committee received in July 1992 the
following message from the Ebone Management Committee:
" The Ebone MC has addressed the continuation of the Ebone '92 IP
service for 1993. Ebone MC has noted the plans and progress in
setting up the OU and the OU's intention to provide a pan-European
multi-protocol backbone service. Ebone MC has concluded that to be
able to secure a proper continuation of IP backbone services in
Europe it will be necessary to continue the current IP services at
least until mid 1993. The Ebone MC is keen on optimising the
transition process from the current situation to a single
pan-European multi-protocol backbone service and on minimising the
organisational overhead involved. Therefore, the Ebone MC offers to
propose to the Ebone participants that the Operational Unit takes
up full organisational and commercial control over the Ebone '93 IP
services as soon as possible. This proposal is conditional to the
OU being prepared to continue the operation of the Ebone IP
technical infrastructure until the intended MPBS has demonstrated
its operational capabilities to replace it."
