Michael Palladino September 19, 2011 1 Todays Agenda Review of the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

michael palladino september 19 2011
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Michael Palladino September 19, 2011 1 Todays Agenda Review of the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Michael Palladino September 19, 2011 1 Todays Agenda Review of the main drivers for change External bandwidth capacity Full campus wireless connectivity Potential funding model changes Short term (Options 2 & 3)


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Michael Palladino September 19, 2011

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Today’s Agenda

 Review of the main drivers for change

 External bandwidth capacity  Full campus wireless connectivity  Potential funding model changes

 Short term (Options 2 & 3)  Longer term (Option 4)

 Status of the main drivers  Next steps

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Drivers For Change

 Internet and Internet 2 external connections will need to

increase significantly over the next 5 years

 10-fold campus backbone increase  Most wired connections moving from 10 to 100 or

1000Mbps

 Rates for wired 1000Mbps continue to go down

 FY’10-$30, FY’11-$20, FY’12-$15, FY’13-likely $10/month

 More cloud services will be used

 Need for full-campus wireless access  Need to further simplify our funding model and the way

we bill for networked devices, especially as more and more consumer products are connected to PennNet

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

External Connectivity

 There will be significant increases in Internet and

Internet 2 connectivity needs when servers and services shift to the cloud and applications are not housed on PennNet infrastructure

 In the last 11 years

 Internet usage has grown from 100 Meg to 2000 Meg

 Internet 2 usage has grown from 45 Meg to 400 Meg

 Unit costs have gone down, but they are not free

 Internet- $4/Meg month (Gig $48k/year)  Internet 2- $20/Meg month (Gig $240k/year)

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Internet Current Bandwidth Usage

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Internet Projected Bandwidth Usage

6

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Mbps

slide-7
SLIDE 7

External Connectivity: Internet

 Next steps

 We continue to monitor usage and will make

adjustments as bandwidth grows

 Currently have three, 1 Gig pipes under contract with 2

vendors  We will continue to secure reliable, low-cost and

flexible options with 2 different Internet Service Providers with diverse fiber routes back to campus

 Eventually two-10 Gig interfaces  Ability to scale bandwidth as needed at known rate

increases

 2-3 year terms to lock in low rates

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Internet 2 Current Bandwidth Usage

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

External Connectivity: Internet 2

 Next steps

 We continue to monitor usage and will make adjustments

as bandwidth grows

 Currently have 500 Meg contract under contract, burstable to

1000 Meg

 The ION/DYNES service will soon be available which should

divert some research bandwidth to this lower-cost option

 By FY’13 or FY’14 Internet 2 rates will be decreasing  We could bill significant consumers, however, we prefer

not to due to complexity, additional cost and disincentive to research computing

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Wireless Current Status

 Access point growth

 1760 APs on 09/01/2010  2592 APs on 09/15/2011  832 APs added (47% increase)

 34,018 distinct users in last 6 months  55,619 distinct devices in last 6 months

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Full-Campus Wireless Connectivity

 Earlier this year, there was a NPTF consensus that

Penn should have full-campus wireless solution by FY’14 to support:

 Increasing mobile demands  Exponential growth of consumer devices  Use of mobile devices integrated into classroom

instruction

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Full-Campus Wireless Connectivity

 Current Status

 Residential (100%)

 College House/Sansom Towers/Greeks(Penn-owned)

 Schools

 General coverage (nearly 100%)  High density coverage (100% where there is programmatic need)

 Administrative areas (15-20%)  Outside (10%)

 Penn Park recently completed

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Wireless AP Projected Growth

13

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 # of Aps

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Full Campus Wireless Issues

 Given Penn’s decentralized nature and the current

funding model for wireless, we have issues to address

 Who owns the mobile users as they consume AP

bandwidth capacity and IP addresses?

 Who is owner of outside and public spaces?  How should we prorate costs in shared buildings?  Should we put wireless in non-Penn owned buildings?

 Science Center

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Full Campus Wireless

 Goal

 Have a full campus wireless network by FY’14 (Sept. ‘13)

 Next steps

 Fully articulate strategy  Finalize design, plans and costs

 Operating costs increase by at least $1M annually  We will need over 2500 new access points

 Obtain peer data  Seek faculty and student support  Seek central funding in the fall of 2011

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Full Campus Wireless

Are there other alternatives that should be

investigated?

 Eliminate wireless on campus and just have vendor

solutions from wireless providers (3G and 4G)

 Is this like the modem pool was years ago when good

service was available from commodity providers and we shifted the cost to users?

 Is this still very much a strategic investment for Penn?  Should we outsource an on-campus solution?

 At our current rates with 5000 access points and 50000 users, ISC

could deliver the service at about $3/user/month

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Drivers For Changing the Current Funding Model

 IP billing for the non-headcount CSF charge is 20%

  • r a little over $1M annually

 The current method is too cumbersome

 Over 1000+ folks involved-tracking and thinking

about fiscal aspect of getting an IP address

 Some client behavior in managing down IP address

costs, reflects historical rates ($11.40/month) rather than the current $1.46

 If we keep the same funding model, we would need

to do a programming effort to bill for IPv6 addresses

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

IP FUNDING MODEL CHANGE OPTIONS

 Option 1

 No change on billing for the Central Infrastructure Bundle of

Services (80% headcount-20% IP addresses)

 Wireless IP charges frozen at February 28, 2011 levels  ISC opening address ranges to accommodate substantial growth

 Option 2

 Eliminate all wireless IP addresses (about 12000) from IP billing

pool and increase the CSF rate

 Option 3

 Eliminate all IP charges and just have a 100% headcount model

 Option 4

 Increase Central Infrastructure Bundle to include more services

 Viewed as a potential longer term approach

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Option 1: No Change

 Advantages

 No changes necessary and bills stay the same

 Disadvantages

 The arbitrary date of February 28, 2011 to fix the wireless

IP pool was not equal for all schools and centers

 Increases costs for IPv6 billing development  Wasted time for 1000 folks involved in tracking, approving

and managing IP costs in schools and centers

 Higher cost for ISC to bill than 100% headcount model

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Option 1: Current Summary Costs

20

CSF FY'12 Budget $5,205,607 FY'12 Projected # of IP addresses 59,400 Headcount Factor 80% Headcount Dollars $4,164,486 IP Factor 20% IP Dollars $1,041,121 IP rate/year $17.53 IP rate/month $1.46

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Option 1: Current School/Center Charges

21

FY'12

Total Adjusted Headcount % of total headcount Headcount based charge (80% of NW cost)* IP Counts @ 11/30/10 IP charge (1.46 month) Total FY 12 Charge

Annenberg Center For Performing Arts

17 0.07% 2,911 77 1,350 4,261

Annenberg School for Communication

141 0.58% 24,140 602 10,551 34,691

Audit Compliance and Privacy

21 0.09% 3,652 39 684 4,336

Business Services

260 1.07% 44,513 720 12,620 57,133

Campus Services

49 0.20% 8,446 369 6,468 14,914

College Houses and Academic Services

40 0.16% 6,849 308 5,398 12,247

Development and Alumni Relations

334 1.37% 57,185 517 9,062 66,247

Division of Finance

246 1.01% 42,176 750 13,145 55,321

Division of Public Safety

170 0.70% 29,107 277 4,855 33,962

Division of Recreation & Intercollegiate Athletics

129 0.53% 22,085 547 9,587 31,672

Executive Vice President

27 0.11% 4,679 129 2,261 6,940

Facilities and Real Estate Services

864 3.55% 147,987 737 12,918 160,905

Graduate School of Education

899 3.69% 153,850 948 16,616 170,466

Human Resources

63 0.26% 10,728 126 2,208 12,936

Information Systems and Computing

278 1.14% 47,598 600 10,516 58,114

Institute of Contemporary Art

13 0.05% 2,226 53 929 3,155

International Programs

26 0.11% 4,508 89 1,560 6,068

Law School

628 2.58% 107,551 1,323 23,189 130,740

Morris Arboretum

43 0.18% 7,417 106 1,858 9,275

President's Center

183 0.75% 31,387 507 8,886 40,273

Provost Interdisciplinary Programs

42 0.17% 7,246 1,027 18,001 25,247

Provost's Center

367 1.51% 62,835 801 14,039 76,874

School of Arts and Sciences

5,752 23.65% 984,913 9,272 162,513 1,147,426

School of Dental Medicine

731 3.01% 125,198 1,961 34,371 159,569

School of Design

496 2.04% 84,845 1,144 20,051 104,896

School of Engineering and Applied Science

1,734 7.13% 296,855 5,671 108,248 405,103

Perelman School of Medicine

4,958 20.38% 848,876 9,764 171,137 1,020,013

School of Nursing

875 3.60% 149,854 1,321 23,154 173,008

School of Social Policy and Practice

276 1.13% 47,179 211 3,698 50,877

School of Veterinary Medicine

1,079 4.44% 184,725 2,492 43,678 228,403

Student Activities

1 0.00% 171 225 3,944 4,115

Student Services

255 1.05% 43,712 1,860 32,601 76,313

University Library

260 1.07% 44,449 2,614 45,816 90,265

University Museum

101 0.41% 17,235 324 5,679 22,914

Wharton School

2,964 12.18% 507,399 7,164 125,566 632,965

Total

24,323 100.00% 4,164,487 54,675 1,041,121 5,205,607

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Option 2: Eliminate Wireless IPs From Billable Count

 Advantages

 Increases mobility and wireless access without need for

additional charges

 More closely equalizes charging-not just an arbitrary date

that was picked to hold charges constant

 Simplifies billing and administration

 Disadvantages

 There are winners and losers in the range of $22k less to

$19k more annually

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Option 2: Summary No Wireless IP Charges

23

CSF FY'12 Budget $5,205,607 FY'12 Projected # of IP addresses 47,193 Headcount Factor 80% Headcount Dollars $4,164,486 IP Factor 20% IP Dollars $1,041,121 IP rate/year $22.06 IP rate/month $1.84

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Option 3: 100% Headcount Model

 Advantages

 All advantages of Option 2  No disincentive for multiple devices  Charges would be very predictable with one bill done

annually to schools and centers

 No need to develop billing for IPv6  Lowers administrative overhead in schools/centers and ISC  We would pass along savings to customers

 Disadvantages

 There are winners and losers in the range of $35k less to

$84k more annually

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Option 4: Increase the bundle

 We could include all one-time and on-going support costs for

a full-wireless and other services (email, PennNet Phone, etc.) in the Central Infrastructure Bundle

 ISC could increase the CSF Bundle to include the roughly $1M

more that is needed in ongoing operating expenses for the additional 2000 access points

 $1M one time for wiring & AP placement (4 years = $250k)  2000 APs X 12 months X $31.75/month AP ongoing cost = $762k

 The advantage would be we would have a full-campus

wireless network

 The disadvantage is the winners and losers get further

magnified as we put more in the bundle

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

IP FUNDING MODEL TEAM SUGGESTIONS

 Show us the breakdown of the Central Service

Infrastructure Bundle and associated costs and year-

  • ver-year changes

 What are the savings for not doing IPv6 billing

development?

 What are the savings by doing the headcount only

billing option and billing once annually?

 Drop Option 4 (bigger bundle of services)

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

IP FUNDING MODEL TEAM SUGGESTIONS

 The majority of the team felt that Option 3 (headcount model) is

the right way to go

 However, in these tough fiscal times accepting any additional

charges was not palatable

 Team members only wanted to go to their deans once with ISC

billing model changes

 Team members thought that the logic behind the current percent

  • f allocation methodology needed to be revisited

 A fuller team will be assembled-but not likely to finish work and

reach consensus in two months before FY’13 budgets are due

 This would leave us with the current CSF billing methodology for

FY’13

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

3-YEAR AGGREGATE SCHOOL & CENTER N&T EXPENSES

28

FY'10 FY'11 FY'12

SCHOOLS/CENTERS

ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED

General University $10,616 $5,208 $1,708 SAS $2,600,812 $2,551,145 $2,543,069 Provost Interdisciplinary $78,505 $86,763 $71,474 Nursing $536,948 $520,811 $371,959 Wharton $1,980,558 $1,916,823 $1,861,664 SEAS $689,189 $697,689 $643,422 Annenberg Center $51,716 $59,195 $60,077 UPHS & RADIOLOGY $590,298 $629,285 $639,700 Athletics $223,539 $230,689 $209,284 Museum $128,640 $129,747 $127,938 GSE $339,731 $336,710 $368,263 Design $308,841 $296,103 $303,916 Social Policy & Practice $126,581 $135,981 $152,163 Annenberg School $224,456 $200,678 $183,230 Medicine $3,500,245 $3,572,946 $3,674,822 Library $365,987 $370,182 $365,525 Dental Medicine $606,778 $624,539 $603,357 Law $312,202 $307,984 $312,249 Veterinary Medicine $825,982 $762,121 $749,544 Morris Arboretum $23,322 $24,171 $25,327 ICA $21,779 $21,414 $23,120 International Program $41,189 $35,748 $36,082 Audit & Compliance $23,855 $25,357 $24,493 Public Safety $233,920 $177,199 $174,295 President's Office $325,986 $313,740 $301,696 Provost's Office $395,444 $393,750 $402,008 Student Activities $53,836 $51,383 $50,878 Student Services $672,644 $688,855 $704,876 College Houses/Acade $86,657 $82,377 $82,432 Division of Finance $380,037 $378,905 $354,375 Development & Alumni $359,938 $373,649 $362,321 ISC $873,596 $792,768 $774,975 Human Resources $75,677 $74,917 $74,609 Business Services $330,525 $333,687 $336,577 Campus Services $1,830,771 $1,849,379 $1,848,702 Facilities Services $535,455 $486,666 $490,524 EVP $51,462 $51,942 52,254 Ext Org (Agency Funds) $210,222 $184,936 175,612

Totals $20,027,941 $19,775,442 $19,538,518

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Initiatives To Lower Costs

 Telephone audits and PennNet Phone  Proactive wired port audits of unused ports

 We are reducing wired ports in ResNet to help

fund wireless

 Lower cost 1000Mbps connections in FY’13  Consolidating more services with ISC can reduce

your costs

29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Upcoming Meetings

 October 17 (IDS)  November 7 (Rate setting)

 Next steps

 Complete lines of business analysis to determine what Central

Infrastructure Bundle cost would be for baseline and known growth services (NGP, Internet, etc.)

 Determine new initiatives for FY’13 and determine costs

 IDS  Shibboleth integration work  Full campus wireless  Funding model impact

30