Proposal for the
Continued Interconnection of the
Federal Agency Networks


December 11, 1995 Version 1.0
Prepared on behalf of the FEPG for the EOWG

1.0 Introduction


From 1986-1995, the National Science Foundation hasprovisioned a backbone network to support the activitiesof the academic and research community. The Dept. of Defense,NASA, and Dept. of Energy also provisioned networks tosupport specified groups of scientists.  In order to avoidas much duplication of effort as possible, the variousagencies decided to connect the communities that theyserved at two interconnection points (FIX).

When NSF proposed decommissioning the NSFNET backbone,it defined interconnection points (NAP) where all networkservice providers, independent or federal, could interconnect.The primary goal for establishing interconnectionpoints between service providers was to maintainconnectivity between components of the research,education, and defense communities after elements ofthose communities had migrated to commercial serviceproviders.  Whereas there was a transition plan for movingthe NSF attached regional networks from the NSFNET backbone toalternative networks, and to have the alternative networksconnect to the NAPs, there was never a complementaryplan to assure connectivity between the federal agencynetworks and those regional networks which werepreviously reachable via the NSFNET.

Therefore the evolution of the Internet in the United Statessince the retirement of the NSFNET Backbone Service has necessitatedthe reevaluation of interconnectivity between the federalagency networks and the rest of the Internet community.

Previously the federal agency networks, DISN, DREN, ESnet andNSI, were interconnected at the two FIXes (FIX-E at CollegePark, MD and FIX-W at Moffet Field, CA). At these same twointerconnection points, the NSFNET Backbone Service providedconnectivity to the broader Research and Education Internetcommunity.

With the retirement of the NSFNET Backbone Service, theICM Program has provided interim connectivity to thebroader Internet community from FIX-E.  On the westcoast, NASA Ames has worked with MFS to establish extendedconnectivity from FIX-W to MAE-W.

The FEPG consists of representatives of the federal agencynetworks. The EOWG has asked the FEPG to recommenda way to provide connectivity comparable to what wasprovided at the FIXes when the NSFNET backbone wasin place. The FEPG has been discussing this issue forwell over 1 year.

In the process of discussing the options, theFEPG has agreed that the agencies prefer to maintain twocommon interconnection points for exchanging traffic betweenthe various agencies.  Years of experience with the FIXeshas indicated that two were adequate for redundancy,capacity, and simplicity. With that preference as the basicassumption, the FEPG has tried to determine where the twointerconnection points shall be and when it will be feasibleto migrate to the targeted interconnection points.

2.0 Scope


The scope of this document is to define what the criteria arein selecting interconnection sites and to recommend sites whichfulfill these requirements.  The document will also proposesteps which need to be taken to progress the migration fromthe current situation to the recommended solution.

3.0  Criteria for the Interconnection Points


3.1  Performance Criteria

The following criteria are based on the level of serviceand reliability that has been established at the twoexisting FIXes.

Space:


Power:


Access:

Equipment security:

Site Support:
Services:
3.2 Reachability Criteria

The following networks must be accessible from oneof the two selected locations:
4.0  Analysis


4.1  FIX-E

FIX-E at College Park meets most of the criteriabecause it is possible to bridge it to MAE-E.One drawback is that each agency would be dealing withtwo providers, BBN Planet/SURAnet and MFS. This meansdealing with two network operations centers to resolveproblems.  That is undesirable.

BBN/Planet is willing to continue to host the federalagency networks, but many of the networks felt thatthe facility was less secure than the facilities ofNASA Ames, Sprint, AADS, and PacBell.

All of the required peer organizations are connectedto the MFS MAE-E facility, so they would be reachablefrom the current FIX-E.

The FEPG felt that BBN Planet/SURAnet had been gracious hostsbut that it was time to relocate to an interconnection pointwhich was more directly part of the emerging US architectureand would provide a single point of contact for interconnectionproblems.  BBN/Planet has closed the NOC which was locatedin College Park, but continues to maintain a POP there andhas on-site engineers in College Park.

4.2  MAE-E

MAE-E offers wide opportunities for broader connectivity sincethere are approximately 35 service providers attached to thisNAP.  MFS is more interested in selling access than supportinga facility to house service providers' equipment. The federalagency networks are interested in colocation and support forthe colocated routers.  MFS' business plan discouragescolocation, so therefore the federal agency networks feltthat the east coast interconnection point should be elsewhere.

4.3  Sprint NAP

Sprint's NAP meets the performance criteria with the exceptionof response time. Sprint is unable to guarantee response timeof less than two hours if support is needed on location. ESnetand the Routing Arbiter project have housed equipment at the Sprintfacility and have been favorably impressed with the professionalmanner in which the facility is managed.

The ICM Program is relocating its equipment to the Sprint NAPas is DREN. Many of the service providers which support theEuropean Research and Academic Community are also connecting to theSprint NAP.  All the designated peer organizations are connectedat this facility.

The Sprint NAP was considered a good choice for the proposedinterconnection point on the east coast.

4.4 AADS NAP

None of the four agency networks seriously consideredconnecting to the AADS NAP due to its physical location.ANS has cancelled its connection to AADS so connectivityto one of the designated peer organizations is lacking.

4.5 PacBell NAP

The PacBell NAP has the disadvantage of requiring that anyequipment that is colocated in PacBell facilities must beowned by PacBell.  This is a major deterrent for the federalagency networks.

It might be possible to bridge the PacBell facility tothe FIX-W facility, but no organization has investigated thisfurther.

4.6 FIX-W/MAE-W

All the agencies are comfortable remaining at NASA Amesas long as Ames continues to host an interconnectionpoint. The federal agencies are able to accessproviders from the Pacific Rim area as well as thedesignated peer organizations.  Ames meets all of theperformance criteria.  In fact, Ames was the modelagainst which all other facilities were measured.

MFS has extended a DS3 into Ames to connect MAE-Wwith those federal networks on FIX-W. NSI will continueto be the single point of contact for the federalagency networks for troubleshooting and support.

NASA Ames is ordering a DEC Gigaswitch for the federalagencies interconnection with MAE-West.NASA Ames will support an Ethernet bridged to theMAE-W FDDI for any agency which is unable to supportFDDI.

Currently there is one route server located at MAE-W/FIX-W.This is independent of the route servers at the NAPs. Ameshas committed to having the RA service available atMAE-West and will recover the costs from the attachednetworks.  All the agency networks have indicated thattheir organizations are willing to compensate Ames foroperating the interconnection point on a cost recoverybasis.

5.0 Recommendation


5.1 East Coast

The recommendation is for all of the federal agenciesto relocate at Sprint's NAP in Pennsauken, NJ by May 1,1996.

5.2 West Coast

The recommendation is for all of the federal agenciesto remain at NASA Ames and connect to MAE-W.

6.0 Technical Approach


6.1 Sprint NAP

Each independent federal agency network will be responsiblefor contacting the Sprint organization and negotiating colocationand other contractual arrangements.  NSF has agreed to work withDISA and NASA to investigate acquisition vehicles if they areneeded. The target for establishing connections at the Sprint NAP isMay 1, 1996.

Each federal agency network needs to notify BBN/Planet ofits plans for the equipment which is currently locatedin College Park. BBN/Planet is willing to continue to hostthe federal agency networks at least until May 1, 1996.Any plans to remain at the College Park location needto be addressed individually with BBN/Planet.

6.2 FIX-W/MAE-W

The Ames/MFS interconnection between FIX-W and MAE-Wis already in place.  Ames will order a DEC gigaswitch and expects delivery and installation within 6 months.Once the gigaswitch is operational, the FIX will be retiredand all the agency networks will be connected toMAE-West. If DISN is unable to support FDDI in itsequipment, NSI supports an Ethernet bridged to the FDDI.

The Routing Arbiter has one fully production route serverat AMES.  With the committment from Ames to provideRouting Arbiter service at MAE-W, the routing arbiterawardees have ordered a second route server to provideredundancy for MAE-W.  The target date for delivery ofthe second route server is February 1996.The target is to have the gigaswitch in placeby May 1, 1996.

7.0 Time Table


7.1  Contract with Sprint NAP

DISN		January, 1996
DREN		October, 1995
ESnet		September, 1995
NSI		March, 1996

7.2  Circuit Order and Delivery (Sprint NAP)

DISN		April, 1996
DREN		October, 1995
ESnet		September, 1995
NSI		April, 1996

7.3 Installation of Equipment at Sprint NAP 

DISN	 	April, 1996
DREN		October, 1995
ESnet		September, 1995
NSI		May, 1996

7.4  Retirement of FIX-E

May 30, 1996

7.5 Installation of Gigaswitch at FIX-W

NASA Ames	May 1, 1996

7.6 Installation of RA Service

Merit/ISI	November 15, 1995  only one route server
		February 1996      second, redundant route server

8.0 Assumptions


Several assumptions were made in preparing this proposal.One had to do with the assumption that all the agenciesdesired two common interconnection points.  Anotherassumption was that even if some agencies chose to stayat College Park, MD, it would not be considered one ofthe two common interconnection points. A third assumptionis that Ames would facilitate an agreement for theestablishment of the Routing Arbiter Service atAmes to benefit the entire federal agency community.Finally, it was assumed that due to procurement timelines,it was necessary to move forward with a west coast solutionthat was known to work, instead of investigating optionsto bridge PacBell and Ames.  Tests and evaluation of abridged Ames/PacBell solution may continue if anorganization is designated to conduct these tests, butit is unlikely that this could be completed in timefor a May 1, 1996 implementation.