I3MP Architecture RFI v6.doc

Request for Information for Campus Area Internet Protocol Network Architecture To Support U.S. Army Installations

1.0 SUBJECT

This Request for Information (RFI) seeks recommended architectures for Internet Protocol (IP) networks suitable for NIPRNet and SIPRNet on U.S. Army installations. These campus area networks will transport voice, video, and data. They need to support quality of service (QoS) and Class of Service mechanisms. They must be easily manageable, and they must comply with Federal, DoD, U.S. Army, and Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) security policies and regulations. Also, they must support the Army’s migration to an enterprise approach to application delivery (Area Processing Centers).

Responses to this RFI are due by 4:00 PM on January 30, 2009. See section 9.0 for further information.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

On each of its installations, the United States Army implements a campus area network to provide IP network services to end users. For several years, the standard architecture has been as shown in Figure 1.

The heart of the network is labeled “Campus Area Network” in Figure 1. It includes three areas.

· Redundant Ethernet core switches provide connectivity to distribution switches as well as the Installation Perimeter Network (firewalls, intrusion protection, and other security equipment), the Network Management System, the Server Farm, and COOP.

· The distribution Ethernet switches serve mainly as aggregation points for connections from the end user buildings (EUBs). In the Army’s current partial mesh configuration, each distribution switch is connected to both core switches plus the distribution switch’s two nearest-neighbor distribution switches. Core and distribution switches are interconnected using 10 Gbps links.

· The main access Ethernet switches in each EUB are connected to one or more distribution switches. These connections can be copper, fiber, or wireless. Wireless links must conform to DoD and Army policies and best business practices. In a large EUB, several Layer 2 switches may be connected to a Layer 3 switch, and then the Layer 3 switch is connected to the distribution switch. As an alternative, an EUB may have multiple Layer 2 switches, all of which are connected directly to a distribution switch.

Figure 1: I3MP Network Architecture

This configuration is intended to provide 99.999% availability among the core and distribution switches, and high availability may be extended to an EUB if the EUB Layer 3 switch is dual homed or dual uplinked.

Please note that individual locations may implement variations of the network shown in Figure 1. For example, small locations may only have one core switch. On the other hand, large locations may use DWDM technology to interconnect the core and distribution switches, and some OCONUS locations use optical transport networks to connect distant enclaves to the core or distribution layers.

This architecture was originally developed to provide 10 Mbps unblocked data traffic to each desktop. Since the initial implementations, video and voice (VoIP) traffic have also become important. To illustrate this, Figure 1 also shows line-side VoIP, as indicated by the trunk-side gateways in the core area and the line-side gateway in the access area. The VoIP call processor (not shown) would be in the server farm.

The objective of this RFI is to re-examine this architecture and to determine how it might be improved to take advantage of the technology advances of the last ten years.

3.0 REQUIREMENTS

In response to this RFI, the Army is seeking recommendations for a new or revised IP network architecture for Army locations. The proposed new architecture should revise or replace the campus area network indicated in Figure 1.

3.1 Current Architecture

In developing alternatives to the current architecture, the starting point is that any new architecture must perform at least as well as the present architecture that is shown in Figure 1. Some key features include, but are not limited to

· Core and distribution areas have no single points of failure and are designed to have 99.999% system availability

· Existing networks are interfaced to the campus area network

· Layer 2 switches use Spanning Tree Protocol (STP). Link Aggregation Protocol provides increased bandwidth when more than a single GbE link is required. VLANs are tagged to logically separate traffic.

· Layer 3 switches are IPv6-compliant and support Open Shortest Path First Version 3 (OSPFv3). Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) provides router redundancy and survivability.

· Typical single mode fiber connections are 24 strands between core switches and between distribution switches, and 12-24 strands from core to distribution switches and from access to distribution switches.

· The target design guarantees 10 Mbps full-duplex, non-blocking capability for each user port

· Multicast traffic is supported.

· QoS is supported through Diffserv (DSCP) and IEEE 802.11p.

· Ethernet switches support Simple Network Management Protocol version 3 (SNMPv3)

3.2 New or Revised Architecture

In the intervening years since the above architecture was developed, there have been many new developments in technology. A few are

· Higher performance and greater port densities in Ethernet switches and routers

· Greater maturity of optical transport (, CWDM; Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing, DWDM; Pasive Optical Networks, PON)

· New trends in routing protocols (Multiprotocol Label Switching, MPLS; Provider Backbone Bridges, PBB; Provider Backbone Transport, PBT)

· New opportunities in high bandwidth wireless transport (free space optics, millimeter wave, microwave, WiMAX (IEEE 802.16), WiFi (IEEE 802.11)) Any revised or improved IP network architecture should provide highly reliable and available IP networking that will transport data, voice and video. Goals include

· Equal or better performance compared to the present architecture

· Equal or better availability compared to the present architecture

· Low jitter and high throughput for real time services like voice and video as well as other sensitive applications

· IPv6 capability: support for IPv6 in IPv6 networks and in dual-mode IPv4/IPv6 networks; support for IPv6 network management

· Connections to legacy networks

· Feasible transition plan so that the new network could be implemented gradually within an installation

· Smaller footprint in physical dimensions, power requirements, and/or heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) requirements

· Lower initial cost

· Simpler or reduced cost operations and maintenance

· Reduced infrastructure implementation cost (e.g., reduced trenching)

· Reduced environmental impact (“green”)

· Compatibility with and support for the Army migration toward enterprise application hosting (Area Processing Centers)

· Support for communities of interest (separate groups of personnel at a particular installation that need to be logically isolated from each other)

It is important that any proposed new architecture be equally suitable for voice and video as well as data. In particular, the Department of Defense Networks Unified Capabilities Requirements, December 2007, and its successors give requirements for Local Area Networks (LANs) associated with voice and video. These Unified Capabilities Requirements are generally compatible with the architecture described above, but they add some additional requirements. These include, but are not limited to

· LANs must be engineered for a ratio of 25% voice, 25% video, and 50% data.

· No single point of failure is allowed to disable voice service for more than 96 users

· Backup power must be provided for an entire VoIP system (call processor, Ethernet switches, IP phones, etc.). Special C2 users get 8 hours backup power, C2 users get 2 hours, and no backup power is required for C2(Routine) and non-C2 users.

Any new architecture proposed in response to this RFI must satisfy the intent of the Unified Capabilities Requirements.

4.0 APPLICATION

Army installations range in size from a few hundred users to several tens of thousands of users. Responses to this RFI should explain how the proposed architecture applies to various sizes of locations. The response should also discuss solutions for regional approaches, where multiple separate locations (enclaves) are combined into a single network.

Typical I3MP buildings presently have cabling systems using Category 5, 5e, and 6 to provide connectivity to the desktop. Responses to this RFI should discuss how existing building infrastructure can be incorporated into the new architecture and should estimate the associated costs for upgrades or accommodation.

The current I3MP architecture uses fast Ethernet or gigabit Ethernet connectivity to the desktop. The bandwidth and throughput of the network provides a 10 Mbps full-duplex, non-blocking capability for each user port. With the advent of applications that demand high bandwidth, it is desirable to have greater than 10 Mbps, non-blocking. On the other hand, while this is appropriate for most users, there may be circumstances where a different need might override the 10 Mbps target. For example, mobility and ubiquitous connectivity in a warehouse or motor pool might be more important than high bandwidth. As another example, if a range is otherwise virtually inaccessible, having low bandwidth connectivity might be better than having no connectivity. RFI responses should consider situations like these.

5.0 ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Any solution proposed for I3MP network architectures must be secure and easily manageable. Responses should address security aspects of the proposed network architectures and should discuss how the proposed architectures minimize the maintenance and manageability burdens of the Directors of Information Management. In addition, responses should discuss how secure access can be provided for remote users without endangering the security of the network.

6.0 SAMPLE RESPONSE OUTLINE

Following is a suggested outline with suggested page counts for a response to this RFI. This outline is intended to minimize the effort of the respondent and structure the responses for ease of analysis by the government. Nevertheless, respondents are free to develop their response as they see fit.

Section 1 – Conceptual Alternatives

Briefly describe one or more alternative architecture concepts for campus area IP networks, including the reliability and availability characteristics of the alternatives. Discuss the differences between Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside Continental United states (OCONUS) concepts or solutions, if any. (2-4 pages per alternative, with one diagram per alternative identifying the brand/type of equipment that would typically be deployed)

Section 2 – Feasibility Assessment

Briefly describe the feasibility of each alternative and the design tradeoffs involved as matched against the functional requirements. (1 page per alternative)

Section 3 – Cost Estimates

Provide a rough order of magnitude cost estimate for each alternative, including non-recurring and annual recurring costs. Also, discuss cost drivers and cost tradeoffs. (1-2 pages)

Section 4 – Additional Materials

Please provide any other materials, suggestions, and discussion you deem appropriate.

7.0 DISCLAIMER

This RFI is solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. All information received in response to this RFI that is marked Proprietary will be handled accordingly. Responses to the RFI will not be returned. In accordance with FAR 15.202(e), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this RFI.

8.0 REFERENCES

a. Army Regulation AR 25-2, Information Assurance, (available from http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/25_Series_Collection_1.html)

b. Department of Defense Networks Unified Capabilities Requirements, December 2007 (available from http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/apl/dsn/dsn_requestdocs.html)

c. DODI 8100.3, Department Of Defense (DoD) Voice Networks (available from http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/ins1.html)

d. DODI 8510.01, DoD Information Assurance Certification And Accreditation Process (DIACAP) (available from http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/ins1.html)

9.0 CONTACT INFORMATION

Following is the Point of Contact (POC) for this RFI:

Ms. Karen E McKevitt

Acquisition Specialist

US Army, PM NSC

SFAE-PS-NS

Squire Hall, Bldg 283

Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703

(732) 532-7961 karen.mckevitt@us.army.mil Technical Point of Contact

Mr. Stephen Nygren – Viatech (Contractor)

(732) 532-1872 stephen.nygren@us.army.mil Please submit responses via e-mail in Microsoft Office format by 4:00 PM on January 30, 2009, to the POC at: karen.mckevitt@us.army.mil. You may also submit supplemental hardcopy materials such as brochures, etc. (5 copies each) to the POC.