Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

layer3communitygroup - Re: PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report

Subject: NAOPpag Subcommittee

List archive

Re: PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Linda Roos <>
  • To: Michael Sinatra <>, "" <>
  • Subject: Re: PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report
  • Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:38:20 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;

Dear Layer 3 Community Group,
First, thanks to Michael for his thoughtful consideration of the report and
for his comments below. He has a clear, concise articulation of the issue and
a suggested solution.

As we have about a week before the report needs to be presented to the
NAOPpag (on April 27 at the Global Summit), I request a two-step process:
1. By COB on Monday, April 20, send any comments to add to Michael’s
remarks. If you don’t send comments, we will assume that Michael’s suggested
direction is fine with you.
2. On Tuesday, April 21, we will update the report based on Michael’s
remarks and send the updated report to the group for endorsement with a
requested response by COB Thursday, April 23. We are asking that everyone in
the group respond so that we understand the perspective of the entire group.

Thank you again for your participation in this process. We appreciate it. Let
me know what questions you have.

On Apr 16, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Michael Sinatra

> I talked to Linda on the phone yesterday and indirectly talked to Chris
> R. about some comments I had and they suggested that I post them to the
> list.
> I read the report again this morning, and I have two comments: One major
> and one minor.
> The minor comment is on page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which
> actually starts on page 4). That paragraph makes a compelling case for
> keeping TRCPS and R&E separate, but at the end it says that "Internet2
> will continue to maintain a logical separation of the two networks in
> the near future." "Near future" isn't well defined, and I would suggest
> that we either put a time limit on it (keeping in mind that there is a
> 24-month notification timeframe) or we use another phrase ("foreseeable
> future" or "medium term") that better describes the timeframe. (In
> Internet parlance, "near future" could mean something like 3 months.)
> The major comment is this: The report appears to be written by the Layer
> 3 Community Group, directing the I2 engineering staff to do a bunch of
> detailed things regarding network consolidation. See, for example, the
> title, "Layer3 Community Group Report: Consolidating TR-CPS and R&E."
> The document then starts off with "This document is meant to outline the
> steps and policies Internet2 will implement in response to the Future
> Peering Committee's...."
> The key word there is "will." Is this will in the sense of "here's what
> I will do; is that ok?" or is it will in the sense of "you will [shall]
> do this according to our recommendations"? I think we need to be clearer.
> First off, I recall the origin of this report to be from I2/IU
> engineering *to* the L3 Community Group for review, input, and consent.
> I still think that is the purpose here, and I think we should better
> reflect that this report originated among I2/IU technical staff and is
> being presented to the L3CG and augmented by that group.
> Second, if one reads, as I easily did, the report as directing the I2
> staff to perform the consolidation in a certain manner, then I would be
> uncomfortable with having the L3CG take such a hands-on approach, and I
> would not endorse such an approach. I may be in the minority here, but
> I even read the Future Peering Committee's report as advisory--a set of
> recommendations that I2 staff can implement at their discretion. For
> example, we tend to assume consolidation leads to cost savings, but
> consolidation can also concentrate complexity inside a smaller system,
> which can reduce reliability and actually increase costs. It's up to
> the I2 staff to determine at which point the marginal costs of a
> consolidation activity outweigh the marginal gains.
> If we read the current report as a report of the staff saying "here's
> how we interpret the FPC's recommendation to allow for consolidation,
> does the L3CG concur?" then I think the report is reasonable, with one
> caveat. The caveat is that we should give the I2 staff an escape clause
> if it turns out that there are unforeseen costly obstacles to completing
> the full consolidation. I think there is some wiggle room in the
> detailed bullet points, but we may want to include a certain amount of
> discretionary authority in an overall summary of the activities.
> However, I do not think this in itself is a barrier to my endorsing the
> document.
> I would recommend that the title of the report be changed to reflect
> that it is a report or proposal by the I2/IU engineering staff, to the
> L3CG (or to the NAOPpag with the advice and consent of the L3CG); and
> that a few sentences be added (or changed) to the "Purpose" section to
> better reflect origins. For example, the first sentence(s) could read:
> "This document is intended to outline the steps and policies that the
> Internet2 engineering team have developed in response to (one or more
> of) the Future Peering Committee's recommendations for the TR-CPS
> service. The document has been reviewed and augmented by members of the
> Layer3 Community Group, which includes several members of the previous
> Future Peering Committee, and the Layer3 Community Group endorses the
> plan of action developed by Internet2 staff and outlined in this
> document." Note that the second sentence could actually replace the
> *last* sentence in the "Purpose" section.
> I apologize for the lateness of the comments, but I did discuss this
> with others and I even offered to keep my mouth shut, but folks I talked
> to felt that it would be useful for me to make these comments.
> Thanks for reading through this long message.
> michael
> On 4/15/15 3:56 AM, Linda Roos wrote:
>> Dear Layer 3 Community Group,
>> We still would like to have your endorsement of this report as
>> representing our conversations and including all of your
>> perspectives/remarks. Please let me know by *COB on Thursday, April 16*.
>> __ I endorse the report
>> __ I have additional comments to incorporate
>> We want to provide a final report to provide to the NAOPpag with
>> sufficient time for them to review prior to their 4/27 meeting.
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> *From: *Linda Roos
>>> <
>>> <mailto:>>
>>> *Subject: * *PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report*
>>> *Date: *April 8, 2015 at 11:07:53 AM EDT
>>> *To:
>>> *"
>>> <mailto:>"
>>> <
>>> <mailto:>>
>>> Dear Layer 3 Community Group,
>>> Thank you for your participation in this group and for your input to
>>> the final report. Chris Robb has incorporated the comments received
>>> and addressed issues raised in the discussions. Attached, for your
>>> final review and approval, are the marked-up copy of the report as
>>> well as a clean copy. After we have endorsement from everyone in the
>>> group, we will take the report to the NAOPpag. We are asking that you
>>> indicate via return email message that you endorse the report (or
>>> articulate any additional comments that you may have). Please
>>> indicate your endorsement by COB on Monday, April 13. Let me know
>>> what questions you have. Thanks.
>>> linda

Linda Roos
Director, State and Regional Networks

desk: 812-558-0615
mobile: 614-209-8125

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page