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: "Schopis, Paul" <>
  • To: Chris Robb <>
  • Cc: Linda Roos <>, Michael Sinatra <>, "" <>
  • Subject: RE: PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report
  • Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:02:15 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is;; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;


Content endorsed. I am not trying to drive you completely crazy, but I did make three very minor grammatical corrections. See the attached, they are on pages 4,7 & 9.






From: Chris Robb [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:46 PM
To: Schopis, Paul
Cc: Linda Roos; Michael Sinatra;
Subject: Re: PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report




I’ve taken Michael and John’s feedback and crafted it into the document. John raised a few good questions that we can discuss on list, but I didn’t feel comfortable addressing given the limited scope of the change process we proposed on Friday. However, I did integrate all non-material and grammatical changes John suggested. Many thanks to both of you for the input. 







Chris Robb, Internet2, Director of Architecture and Services

O: 812.855.8604  C: 812.345.3188


On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Schopis, Paul <> wrote:


I am good, and good with it to boot.....

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Linda Roos
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:38 PM
To: Michael Sinatra;
Subject: Re: PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report

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 <> wrote:

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
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
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.


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 <
*Subject: * *PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation
*Date: *April 8, 2015 at 11:07:53 AM EDT
*To: *"

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 Roos
Director, State and Regional Networks

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


Attachment: Layer3 Consolidation Report v1.3-PJS-Edits 20150421 (3).docx
Description: Layer3 Consolidation Report v1.3-PJS-Edits 20150421 (3).docx

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page