Technical and status update for the Washington State K-20 Network as delivered by Noah and myself.

1. K-20 Education Network Update
March 12, 2015

2. 1
Overview
 K-20 Governance
 Network Architecture Evolution
 K-20 Budget Request 2015-17
 K-20 In Context
 New Services

3. K-20 Governance

4. 3
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
General operational and technical oversight to the
K-20 Educational Network Consortium
K-20 Educational Network Consortium
General K-20 Operational and Technical Oversight
K-20 Operations Cooperative (KOCO)
K-20 Engineering & Day-to-Day Operations
Engineering Operations Administration Maintenance Provisioning
Current Governance

5. 4
K-20 Educational Network Consortium
 The Deputy Director of the OCIO (or designee)
– representing the OCIO
 The Chief Information Officer from the Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction (or designee)
– representing the K-12 education sector
 The Chief Information Officer from the State Board of Community &
Technical Colleges (SBCTC) (or designee)
– representing the technical and community colleges
 The Associate Vice President for Networks, Data Centers and
Telecommunications from the University of Washington (or designee)
– representing the K-20 Operations Cooperative (KOCO)
 The Executive Director from the Council of Presidents (or designee)
– representing Public Baccalaureate institutions
 A representative of the Educational Service Districts
 A representative from the Washington State Library

6. 5
K-20 Operations Cooperative
 UW KOCO
– Monitor Network & Server Status
– Troubleshoot Network Problems
– Coordinate Problem Resolution
– Provide and Analyze Network Performance Data
– Provide Technical Support
 SBCTC KOCO
– Manage Video Switched Network and MCUs
– Schedule Multipoint Video Resources
– Provide Technical Support

7. 6
State Auditor 2011 Report
 The Washington State Auditor’s Office performed a K-20
Educational Network activity assessment in response to 2010
legislative questions:
 Does the K-20 Network continue to serve the purpose for which
it was created?
 What does the Network cost, and what would be the impact if it
were eliminated?
 Are there more cost effective ways to achieve the objectives of
the Network?
 State Auditor result:
“We conclude the Network remains a valuable, cost-
effective state asset and recommend the institutions
that created the Network in 1996 design a strategy to
reach its full potential in the future.”

8. 7
450 Sites Connected
Thurston
Lewis
Pierce
Mason
Grays Harbor
King
Yakima
Jefferson
Pacific
Wahkiakum
Skamania
Kitsap
Cowlitz
Kittitas
Chelan
Island
FranklinBenton
Grant
Clark
Klickitat
San Juan
Clallam
Okanogan
Skagit
Columbia
Adams
Whitman
Pend
Oreille
StevensFerry
Spokane
Garfield
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Snohomish
Douglas
Lincoln
Asotin
Independent College/
University (7)
Tribal Education Center/
Tribal College (11)
Telemedicine Site (5)
Public Library (24)
Public College/
University (33)
Community/Technical
College (65)
K-12 District/ESD (302)
TVW Olympia
Washington State
Historical Society
• Over 300 K-12 districts and Educational Service Districts
• More than 2,000 K-12 schools and 57,000 classrooms
• Over 1.5 million students
KCTS 9 Seattle

9. Network Architecture Upgrade

10. 9
Statewide Backbone: Gen 1 (1997)

11. 10
Statewide Fiber Optic Backbone
Gen 2 (2005)
Olympia
Seattle
Spokane
Yakima
Pullman
Vancouver
School District
University or College
Library
10 Gbps

12. 11
K-20 40G Network: Gen 3 (2013)

13. 12
Node Site Architecture
12

14. 13
K-20 40 Gbps Network: Gen 3
(2013)

15. K-20 Budget Request 2015-17

16. 15* Data Transport budget assumes $9.75M “reduction in expense” from Federal E-rate Funds. Pre-Erate Data Transport Total = $23.2M
Data
Transport*
$13.5M (52%)
KOCO
$7.9M (31%)
Hardware
$2.9M (11%)
Maintenance
$1.3M (5%)
Other
$0.3M (1%)
• CenturyLink
• CenturyLink/Noanet
• Charter Communications
• Comcast
• Frontier
• Integra
• King County
• Noel Communications
• Startouch
• UW
Data Transport
• Network Engineering
• Network Security
• Network Design
• Network Operations
• Network Maintenance
• Provisioning
• Network Administration
• Facilities
• Systems Administration
• Federal E-rate
• Help Desk
• Strategic Planning
K-20 Operations Cooperative
(KOCO)
• Cisco Edge Routers
• Juniper Edge Routers
• Juniper Core Routers
• Cisco MCUs
• Polycom MCUs
• Granite OSS Platforms
Hardware
• Cisco Edge Routers
• Juniper Edge Routers
• Juniper Core Routers
• Cisco MCUs
• Polycom MCUs
• Granite OSS Platforms
Maintenance
FY 16 & FY17 Budgeted Expense: $25.9M

17. 16
FY16 & FY17 Budgeted Revenue*: $25.9M
Co-Pay
$7.4M (29%)
General
Fund
$16.0M (62%)
Revolving
Fund
$2.5M (9%)
* Also includes funds from the K-20 Revolving Fund

18. 17
0.12 0.15 0.18 0.18
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
0.62 0.64
0.70
0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
0.84
0.94
1.04
1.21
0.77 0.77
0.88 0.88
1.85
2.21
2.67
3.28
1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
Millions
Libraries CTCs Baccalaureates K-12
Biennial Total:
$7.4M
Biennial Total:
$7.2M
Biennial Total:
$10.0M
Biennial Total:
$7.4M
K-20 Co-Pay Revenue by Sector

19. 18
$8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M
$3.4 M $3.9 M $4.6 M $5.4 M $3.6 M $3.6 M $3.7 M $3.7 M
0
100
200
300
$0
$10
$20
$30
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
GigabitsperSecond
Millions
General Fund Appropriation ($M)
Participant Co-pay ($M)
Tail Circuit Capacity (Gbps)
State and Customer Contributions

20. 19
$8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M $8.0 M
$3.4 M $3.9 M $4.6 M $5.4 M $3.6 M $3.6 M $3.7 M $3.7 M
12 Gb 15 Gb
22 Gb
30 Gb
41 Gb
114 Gb
0
100
200
300
$0
$10
$20
$30
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
GigabitsperSecond
Millions
General Fund Appropriation ($M)
Participant Co-pay ($M)
Tail Circuit Capacity (Gbps)
Customer Tail Circuit Capacity (Gbps)

21. K-20 in Context

22. 21
Common Misconception
 Is K-20 an Internet Service Provider?
 Looks like an ISP
 Smells like an ISP
Thurston
Lewis
Pierce
Mason
Grays Harbor
King
Yakima
Jefferson
Pacific
Wahkiakum
Skamania
Kitsap
Cowlitz
Kittitas
Chelan
Island
FranklinBenton
Grant
Clark
Klickitat
San Juan
Clallam
Okanogan
Skagit
Columbia
Adams
Whitman
Pend
Oreille
StevensFerry
Spokane
Garfield
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Snohomish
Douglas
Lincoln
Asotin
Must be an ISP, right?

23. 22
State
Aggregation
Networks
National
Research &
Education
Networks
(NRENs)
Research
Networks/
Corporations
School
Districts
Telemedicine
Sites
Public
Libraries
Colleges
and
Universities
Public
Networks
Regional
Aggregators
(Gigapops)
Other
NRENs
Other
NRENs
The Research and Education“Hierarchy”

24. 23
K-20 in Context: Statewide R&E Aggregation
(representative sample of institutions only)

25. 24
K-20 in Context: Regional R&E Aggregation
(representative sample of institutions only)

26. 25
K-20 in Context: Regional R&E Aggregation
(cont’d)
(representative sample only)

27. 26
K-20 in Context: National R&E Aggregation
(representative sample of institutions only)

28. 27
ARNES (Slovenia)
BELNET (Belgium)
CARNET (Croatia)
CESnet (Czech Republic)
DFN-Verein (Germany)
FCCN (Portugal)
GARR (Italy)
GIP-RENATER (France)
GRNET (Greece)
HEAnet (Ireland)
HUNGARNET (Hungary)
JISC, JANET (UK)
PIONIER (Poland)
RedIRIS (Spain)
RESTENA (Luxemburg)
RIPN (Russia)
SANET (Slovakia)
Stichting SURF (Netherlands)
SWITCH (Switzerland)
ANKABUT (United Arab Emirates)
MCIT (EUN, ENSTINET) (Egypt)
Qatar Foundation (Qatar)
KACST (Saudi Arabia)
Israel-IUCC (Israel)
CANARIE (Canada)
CEDIA (Ecuador)
CNTI (Venezuela)
CoNARE (Costa Rica)
CUDI (Mexico)
INNOVA|RED (Argentina)
REUNA (Chile)
RNP [FAPESP] (Brazil)
SENACYT (Panama)
TENET (South Africa)
TERNET (Tanzania)
NUC (Nigeria)
AARNet (Australia)
ANF (Korea)
C-DAC, ERNET (India)
CERNET, CSTNET, NSFCNET (China)
JAIRC (Japan)
JUCC (Hong Kong)
MYREN/MDeC (Malaysia)
NECTEC / UniNet (Thailand)
NREN (Nepal)
PERN (Pakistan)
REANNZ (New Zealand)
SingAREN (Singapore)
TWAREN (Taiwan)
VinaREN (Vietnam)
K-20 in Context: National R&E Aggregation

29. 28
Participation creates value

30. 29
So what does that mean for K-20?
• Ongoing upgrades:
• Backbone upgrades as needed
• Upstream upgrades as needed
• Transition to Ethernet on tail circuits from TDM
• Tail circuit bandwidth upgrades
• Continual service improvement in operations
• OSS
• Trouble ticketing and support analytics
• Service Desk training

31. 30
New Services
 Managed VPNs
 Layer 3 VPNs
 Layer 2 VPNs
 Virtual Circuits
 Security Services

32. 31
New Services: Layer 3 VPNs
• Permits organizations to route private addressing to other
organizations within the “VPN” – internally or externally to
any particular member of K-20
• Can be managed by the end user or by K-20 engineering
• Adds flexibility to the way that our members connect to each
other

33. 32
New Services: Layer 2 VPNs
(approximately 2015)
• Enables K-20 participants to establish a “state-wide” layer
2 mesh over the K-20 backbone
• End-user controls the routing or devices on the network
• K-20 network treats incoming traffic like a giant state-wide
switch
• Useful for organizations that need advanced routing
features and functionalities or advanced transport

34. 33
New Services: Virtual Layer 2 Circuits
• Enables K-20 participants to bring up point-to-point virtual
circuits between one another utilizing their existing
bandwidth allocation
• Useful for establishing direct routing relationships between
organizations
• May be used to arrange external connectivity via K-20

35. Questions?