STC_NGMP_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_Batch_2_CORRECTED_12Jan17.pdf

ITEM #

SECTION

NUMBER NAME OF SECTION COMMENT TYPE

(select from drop down)

QUESTIONS / COMMENTS

(If questions contain proprietary or SS Sensitive information offerors must Clearly annotate the restrictions within each question) Government Reponses

NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS)

1 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.2.1 Unified Networking Configuration Tool (UNCT). Based on the requirements in this section, is the intent of the UNCT to be a standalone MS Windows application that is enables the user to perform MANET network planning and mission plan generation for the MANET as well as narrowband and SATCOM nets?

The UNCT is intended to be a standalone application. The UNCT is intended to be an MS Windows application. The UNCT is intended to enable the user to perform MANET network planning and mission plan generation for the MANET. The UNCT is intended to enable the user to perform network planning and mission plan generation for narrowband and SATCOM nets. In addition, the UNCT must be able to configure any required routing on the device, including (but not limited to) the distribution of data between WB waveforms and NB waveforms. The UNCT must also be able to configure voice routing to enable cross banding between any waveforms. The UNCT must focus on establishing, planning, and implementing the network architecture within the radio and any attached mission module. The UNCT must also be able to address the cross banding capabilities of the radio regardless of the waveform’s bandwidth (WB or NB).

2 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.2.2 Unified Radio Configuration Application (URCA). Based on the requirements in this section, is the intent of the URCA to be purely a web-served application that provides monitoring and control of a single locally connected radio?

Alternatively, Is it acceptable for the URCA to be implemented as an application on a computing device that is connected to the radio via an IP interface (aka "web" interface)?

What is the desired user computing environment for the URCA.... Windows or Android?

The URCA is not solely intended to be a web-based application that provides monitoring and control of radios connected to the secure MANET. The application shall perform the monitoring and control function on a single, locally-connected radio.

The radio must be under close physical control since security issues associated with web-based applications may prove extremely challenging. The user computing environments may be either (A) a PC running MS Windows, or (B) an Android-based EUD, so the proposed solution must provide for both. The URCA shall only be accessible via a wired local connection to the radio. When used on an EUD, the URCA must allow the operator to be able to adjust the network settings of any other radios from his or her connected radio.

3 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.2.2.1 Unified Radio Configuration Application (URCA). Is the expectation that the web based interface is only available via the local wired connection?

Or, is the intent that the web based interface is also be available over the EUD MANET?

Is it the intent that the web served interface, by doctrine, be classified at the highest classification level of the operational channels of the connected radio?

The URCA shall only be available through a wired local connection via either a PC running MS Windows or an Android-based EUD. Regarding the classification level, the URCA shall be installed on an EUD that is classified to the highest operational data classification of the radio. If voice traffic is at a higher classification level, the URCA shall not be able to access the voice transmission feature within the radio.

4 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.8.1.2.5 Security Features (for the MANET). States “Unit shall not use any form of TLS certificates to access radio configuration or management functions.” Is this requirement intended to apply to the Unified Radio Configuration Application (URCA) in 3.2.2? The NSA certification may require a client/server certificate authentication scheme which would conflict with this requirement.

There are numerous methods of communications certified to process classified information that do not require client/server authentication (Transport Layer Security (TLS)). The UNCT is not a server-based application; it is a tool running on a standalone Windows PC. The URCA is a web-based client/server connection, but it shall only be reachable through a cable connection that requires physical control of the device.

5 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.3.2.2.1 states: "The NGMP shall provide access control lists between data that traverses between wideband channels as well as Ethernet data links. The access lists shall be configurable to match an IP address and port number, IP address only, or port number only."

Questions/Requests for clarification:

It is assumed that the ACL solution is applied only to Layer 3 protocols/interfaces. Please confirm this assumption.

Confirmed

6 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.3.2.2.3 states: "The NGMP shall allow paths between wideband interfaces, such as wideband RF waveforms, to be configured as either routed or switched interfaces. In either case, the ability to apply access control lists shall be available."

Questions/Requests for clarification:

Please clarify the intended use cases driving this requirement?

Can it be assumed that the ability to apply access control lists is limited to wideband RF waveforms?

Is it the intent to support both layer 2 (switched) and layer 3 (routed) capabilities?

In order to connect disparate layer 2 technologies (e.g. Ether to SRW), layer 3 (IP) must be used. Is it the intent that the EUDs along with the networking devices be configured to support the required subnetting information?

No, the requirement to apply access control lists is not limited to wideband RF waveforms. If the cross banding of voice is done through RoIP, then ACLs must be applied to both NB and WB waveforms. Tactical Scalable MANET (TSM) uses barrage networking at layer 2, so the ability to shape barrage traffic at layer 2 is an Objective requirement, while the shaping of traffic at layer 3 is a Threshold requirement. Yes, the requirement is to support both layer 2 (switched) and layer 3 (routed) capabilities. The last question is unclear. Nevertheless, please note that the subnetting information shall be configured on the router in the FPGA and on the DHCP server, so the EUD will necessarily be a device within the subnet.

Page 1 of 3 STC NGMP RFP Questions and Answers Batch 2 CORRECTED 12Jan17

NUMBER NAME OF SECTION COMMENT TYPE

(select from drop down)

QUESTIONS / COMMENTS

(If questions contain proprietary or SS Sensitive information offerors must Clearly annotate the restrictions within each question) Government Reponses

7 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.3.2.2.5 states: "The NGMP shall adhere to Differentiated Services Field markings as per IETF RFC 2474."

Interpretating Information from the Bidder:

RFC 2474 only specifies the Differentiate Service Architecture, and the potential use of the Differentiated Services Field by various per hop behaviors. The RFC does specify the default (0), and “Class Selector”, which is intended to provide backward compatibility with uses of the old TOS field, but this mapping is not required.

Questions/Requests for clarification:

Does the Government's interpretation align with the bidder's interpreting information shown above?

Given this context, what does it mean to “adhere” to the markings?

Recommendation and Further Questions:

We advise against adopting Expedited and Assured Forwarding per hop behaviors since they don’t apply well in wireless environments where the bandwidth can change rapidly and to extremes. Instead we recommend that the bidder be able to apply the Differentiated Services Fields to a platform/waveform provided per hop behavior. Can the Government please advise on this recommendation?

Since traditional waveform Per-Hop Behaviors (PHB) architectures (Expedited Forwarding, Assured Forward, etc.) don’t map well to MANETs where throughput and reliability can vary greatly, can other QoS systems be offered?

Paragraph 3.3..2.2.5 was inartfully labeled, and will be changed to read, "The NGMP shall adhere to the Differentiated Services Field structure set forth in IETF RFC 2474." RFC 2474 is the current published standard for network prioritization based on per-hop behavior (PHB) as determined by class selector code point. Packets identified with a class selector code point must be handled to meet the PHB requirement. Any packet that enters a network created by the NGMP shall have a PHB as determined by the class selector code point. Adhering to the RFC means that packets within a NGMP network are given a class selector code point to ensure PHB.

However, offerors may provide alternatives to implement a Differentiated Services Field (DSF) and explain how packets entering and exiting the NGMP will maintain interoperability with network QoS settings on a strategic Cisco based network.

Recommendations for other QoS solutions will also be considered. For instance, if an NGMP network will maintain QoS in conjunction with a strategic network then it could be an alternative solution.

Note, however, an alternate DSF implementation or QoS solution incorporated into a proposal might not be acceptable for a variety of reasons. Offerors are therefore cautioned to submit proposals that set forth both the government specifications and their alternative(s).

8 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.3.2.2.5 (should be 3.3.2.2.6?) states: "The NGMP shall provide a dynamic host configuration protocol server with user configurable internet protocol scopes."

Questions/Requests for clarification:

Please define “protocol scopes”. Is this the Microsoft term for a pool of IP addresses available to the server?

The second, redundant paragraph numbered 3.3.2.2.5 was changed to 3.3.2.2.6 via Amendment 01. The term "protocol scope" is not unique to Microsoft. This paragraph simply requires that the NGMP include a DHCP server that assigns addresses from IP ranges (or "scopes") of subnets that can be configured, customized and uniquely defined by the user using IPv4 standard 32-bit (4 octet) addresses.

9 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.3.2.2.7 states: "The NGMP shall provide the ability to modify the time to live of packets egressing an interface."

Questions/Requests for clarification:

Please clarify the use case for this requirement?

The general modification of TTLs by users can have dangerous consequences such as network loops.

We assume that, if TTLs need to be modified, this would only occur on Layer 3 traffic/interfaces. Is this correct?

There are times when a link may have a higher than anticipated latency. Being able to adjust the TTL of packets will be necessary for troubleshooting purposes. The ability to adjust the TTL must therefore be available to the user as an administrative function.

10 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

3.3.2.2.10 states: "The NGMP shall provide for port overloaded Network Address Translation."

Questions/Requests for clarification:

Please confirm that “port overloaded” is synonymous with “One-to-many NAT” or NAPT where a single public IP address is exposed, and multiple private addresses exist behind the NAT, and a stream is mapped & identified by the 5 tuple of source/destination IP, source/destination port, and protocol?

Yes, this is the correct interpretation.

Page 2 of 3 STC NGMP RFP Questions and Answers Batch 2 CORRECTED 12Jan17

NUMBER NAME OF SECTION COMMENT TYPE

(select from drop down)

QUESTIONS / COMMENTS

(If questions contain proprietary or SS Sensitive information offerors must Clearly annotate the restrictions within each question) Government Reponses

11 Attachment 1 NGMP Government Performance Specification (PS) Substantive

4.3.2.3 (Interfaces) antennas. In 3.1.1 the Government expresses the desire for industry to propose optimum antenna combinations that maximize performance and also minimize weight and the number of antennas. In order to accomplish this, bidder suggests that 3:1 VSWR should be allowed for both NB and WB. Otherwise, the Government will cause operators to carry more antenna combinations without achieving improved RF performance range during missions.

Supporting Follow Up Information:

1. The antenna and radio operate as a system.

2. The goal of the radio-antenna system is to maximize overall Effected Radiated Power (ERP) which thus improves real world performance and range for the Operator.

3. The antenna is a 2-port device: the 50 ohm input side, where VSWR is measured; and the free space output side, where efficiency and gain are measured.

4. Forcing the input side of the antenna to enforce a 2:1 VSWR is possible, but it introduces losses in efficiency across the entire frequency band and thus limits the ERP and negatively impacts real world performance and range for the Operator.

5. Bidder has found that the best way to maximize ERP is to carefully integrate and match the requirements for the radio and the antenna.

6. Bidder has found that allowing VSWR to be 3:1 in some areas of an antenna's band(s), provides better "system" design that enables maximum EPR and performance range for the Operator.

7. Looking at this another way, when we design an antenna matching network with a maximum VSWR of 3.5:1 and typical VSWR less than 3.0:1. Then when the VSWR does hit a point where the radio cuts back a dB for the spectrum of VSWR = 3.5:1, it still provides optimum ERP across the rest of the spectrum. When forced to focus VSWR 2:1 as the primary requirement, then the entire spectrum has reduced ERP and reduced performance range for the Operator due to the efficiency of the matching network.

Question:

Bidder respectfully requests that 4.3.2.3 allow for 3:1 VSWR in both NB and WB antennas.

Changing the VSWR threshold in the PSpec to 3:1 is acceptable provided the NGMP transmitter running all NB and WB waveforms will work into a 3.5:1 VSWR. With that said, paragraph 4.3.2.3 is changed to read as follows: "The narrowband and wideband antennas supplied with the NGMP shall have nominal input impedance of 50 Ohms and a Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (VSWR) of 3:1 or better provided the radio can support antennas with a VSWR of 3.5:1 for both narrowband and wideband waveforms across the entire tuning range (all frequencies) of the radio."

Page 3 of 3 STC NGMP RFP Questions and Answers Batch 2 CORRECTED 12Jan17