K-20 Education Network Update

March 12, 2015

2

Overview

K-20 Governance

Network Architecture Evolution

K-20 Budget Request 2015-17

K-20 In Context

New Services

K-20 Governance

4

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)

General operational and technical oversight to theK-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

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

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

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

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

PendOreille

StevensFerry

Spokane

Garfield

Walla Walla

Whatcom

Snohomish

DouglasLincoln

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

Network Architecture Upgrade

10

Statewide Backbone: Gen 1 (1997)

11

Statewide Fiber Optic BackboneGen 2 (2005)

Olympia

SeattleSpokane

YakimaPullman

Vancouver

School District

University or College

Library

10 Gbps

12

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

13

Node Site Architecture

13

14

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

K-20 Budget Request 2015-17

16* 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

$2.9

M (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

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

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17$0.0

$500,000.0

$1,000,000.0

$1,500,000.0

$2,000,000.0

$2,500,000.0

$3,000,000.0

$3,500,000.0

118,000.16 146,425.63 176,046.24 178,760.34116,000.00 116,000.00 116,000.00 116,000.00

621,706.52 643,531.67697,611.69

775,113.00 775,113.00 775,113.00 775,113.00 775,113.00844,215.66

936,935.091,040,851.47

1,205,419.32

774,004.00 774,004.00880,713.00 880,713.00

1,852,079.88

2,211,515.86

2,665,487.79

3,278,913.74

1,950,000.00 1,950,000.00 1,950,000.00 1,950,000.00

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

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17$0

$10

$20

$30

0

100

200

300

$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

General Fund Appropriation ($M)

Participant Co-pay ($M)

Tail Circuit Capacity (Gbps)

Million

s

Gig

abit

s p

er

Seco

nd

State and Customer Contributions

20

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17$0

$10

$20

$30

0

100

200

300

$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 Gb22 Gb

30 Gb41 Gb

114 Gb

General Fund Appropriation ($M)

Participant Co-pay ($M)

Tail Circuit Capacity (Gbps)

Million

s

Gig

abit

s p

er

Seco

nd

Customer Tail Circuit Capacity (Gbps)

K-20 in Context

22

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

PendOreille

StevensFerry

Spokane

Garfield

Walla Walla

Whatcom

Snohomish

DouglasLincoln

Asotin

Must be an ISP, right?

23

The Research and Education“Hierarchy”

24

K-20 in Context: Statewide R&E Aggregation

(representative sample of institutions only)

25

K-20 in Context: Regional R&E Aggregation

(representative sample of institutions only)

26

K-20 in Context: Regional R&E Aggregation(cont’d)

(representative sample only)

27

K-20 in Context: National R&E Aggregation

(representative sample of institutions only)

28

K-20 in Context: National R&E Aggregation

29

Participation creates value

30

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

New Services

Managed VPNs Layer 3 VPNs Layer 2 VPNs

Virtual Circuits Security Services

32

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

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

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

Questions?