MPLS RFI – Respondents’ Questions & FDOT Answers

Questions Posed by Harris Corporation

1. With reference to 1, “For this RFI, the FDOT is looking for a strategy from a single respondent covering switching and routing technology where both microwave and fiber optics are used as transport.” is it FDOT’s intent to solicit a single system integrator to perform all work described in this RFI on a turnkey basis or for FDOT to solicit equipment and services from multiple vendors and manage the work itself?

Answer to Question 1: Respondents should bear in mind that this is a Request for Information, and not intended as a solicitation or invitation to bid on a particular project. FDOT is comparing network transport technologies to determine the best technology fit for the next-generation Statewide ITS Network. As projects come forward over the coming years, dependent upon available funding coupled with specific FDOT business needs, the projects may be awarded to a single system integrator, or FDOT may opt for equipment purchase only, and bid installation/integration of said equipment on a separate solicitation.

2. With reference to 1.1.2, “It is the intent of the FDOT to pursue the upgrade of the SMS to a hybrid Ethernet and TDM microwave transport solution to provide native Ethernet connectivity.” may the respondent propose an alternative if the approach satisfies the requirements for interface compatibility with the legacy system during transition?

Answer to Question 2: FDOT is not opposed to learn of alternative transports as long as they are not solely based on TDM technology. Respondents must understand that this is not a microwave technology RFI. The RFI’s purpose is to provide interested parties an opportunity to advise FDOT how they would engineer and implement an MPLS core, while maintaining full functionality with a legacy, production system as described in section 1.1.2. Additionally, respondents are reminded that this RFI focuses on MPLS as a core technology, and responses that are exclusive of MPLS will be considered non-responsive by FDOT.

3. With reference to 1.1.3, “Limitations and Constraints” are there any FDOT performance requirements (e.g. service availability and latency) that the respondent must factor into the RFI or solicitation response?

Answer to Question 3: Of course, FDOT is interested in obtaining optimum network performance throughout the entire state. Service availability should be as close to 99.999 as possible. FDOT understands that latency of network traffic will be impacted at interface points between the legacy network and the next-generation network; therefore, no specific latency requirements exist at this time. Respondents are reminded that this is NOT a solicitation.

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 1

4. With reference to 1.1.3, “The FDOT has made a considerable investment in the Statewide Microwave System, and wishes to leverage these assets (real estate, towers, antennas, wave-guide) as a means for providing redundancy for the fiber-optic ITS WAN.” what protection mode is currently provided with the DVM6-45 and Constellation microwave radios (e.g. MHSB, space diversity, frequency diversity) at the sites where microwave radio replacement will be addressed in response to the RFI or solicitation? Will FDOT handle FCC coordination required by the different modulation characteristics of the new, higher-rate radios in the 6 GHz band?

Answer to Question 4: This question is beyond the scope of this RFI.

5. With reference to 1.3.1 Upgrade Scenario #1, “Turnpike Section Upgrade – Complete upgrade” will the complete upgrade include all site equipment associated with the microwave links and fiber interconnects except for the facilities (user application equipment, tower, antenna, W/G and HVAC)? Please confirm which site equipment upgrades FDOT wants as part of this scenario.

Answer to Question 5: Any equipment related to routing of network traffic (e.g.: routers, switches, hubs, fiber optic equipment at Layer 2 and/or Layer 3) can be considered for replacement. Other physical assets such as towers, antennas, waveguide, fiber optic cable, RF shelters, backup generators, etc. are not to be included.

6. With reference to 1.3.1 Upgrade Scenario #1, if the microwave radios will also be replaced, should those radios conform to the standards indicated in 1.1.2 (for diversity as clarified in question 1 above) and 1.1.3 (300-400 MBPS)?

Answer to Question 6: Yes. Respondents are reminded that this RFI is not designed to specify microwave upgrades; however, respondents are not discouraged for including this information. Additionally, respondents are reminded that this RFI focuses on MPLS as a core/routing technology, and responses that are exclusive of MPLS will be considered non-responsive by FDOT.

7. With reference to the following excerpt from 1.3.1 Upgrade Scenario #1 “Respondents should consider all 20 Turnpike sites as key locations where fiber and microwave networks can be leveraged for redundancy” Sites G and I have no fiber optics in the site list in 1.3.1.1. Only sites C and E (and the SMS Hub) appear to have microwave in the site list in 1.3.1.1. Should the respondent base the RFI or solicitation response on the site configurations listed in 1.3.1.1 with the assumption that Sites G and I are pass-throughs, or a blanket assumption that all sites have fiber optic and microwave access?

Answer to Question 7: All 20 Turnpike sites have low-band 6 GHz microwave operating 28 channelized T1s. Sites G & I have no fiber access. Distances between sites are noted in the site listing. Respondents should respond accordingly. FDOT reminds respondents that this is NOT a solicitation.

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 2

8. With reference to Site T (SMS Microwave Hub Site) in 1.3.1.1, should the respondent assume this site design should conform to the Upgraded Hub site described in 1.3.2 Upgrade Scenario #2?

Answer to Question 8: No.

9. With reference to 1.3.2 Upgrade Scenario #2 “Upgrade all Hub Sites and Key Application Sites” please confirm which site equipment upgrades FDOT wants as part of this scenario. If the microwave radios will also be replaced, should those radios conform to the standards indicated in 1.1.2 (for diversity as clarified in question 1 above) and 1.1.3 (300-400 MBPS)?

Answer to Question 9: Upgrade scenario #2 does not include upgrade of the microwave network, as the intermediate links between hub sites may cause the project costs to exceed available funding. This upgrade scenario is to determine how to leverage MPLS core technology over the existing legacy microwave network, such that it can be folded into a Hub-site to Hub-site microwave network upgrade project at a later date.

10. With reference to 1.3.2 Upgrade Scenario #2 “Upgrade all Hub Sites and Key Application Sites” please confirm that FDOT wants only a site design for each site type enumerated in Question 2-2. If a system level design is required, then respondents will need a site listing similar to that provided for the Turnpike System in 1.3.1 with an indication of which are Hub sites, Key Application Sites, and non-Key Application Sites, with sufficient information to determine network topology.

Answer to Question 10: This is correct. For the purpose of the RFI, respondents can safely assume that there are no more than five intermediate microwave sites between “Hub sites,” and that fiber optic connectivity at these intermediate sites varies – some sites may have fiber availability, others will not. Respondents should consider a Hub site to Hub site path, and presume there is at least a single “key application” site between hub sites, and that the key application site may or may not have fiber available. FDOT is interested in what it would take to maintain connectivity between the two hub sites, through the intermediate sites, using MPLS as a core technology, considering the legacy microwave remains at TDM-based channelized T1s.

11. With reference to Figure 1.3.2-1 and Question 2-2, “For the four different site types (hub site, legacy remote site, key application site, any site type with co-located fiber optic access) – provide a line item equipment configuration.” please explain the configuration difference between a “key application site” and a non-key application site.

Answer to Question 11: A key application is a legacy remote site which will be upgraded to MPLS for the purpose of this RFI, to support a particular application or applications. A legacy, remote site will remain OSPF, utilizing legacy equipment. Legacy remote sites will not undergo any configuration changes. Hub

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 3

sites are locations where all 28 T1s can be dropped in each direction. Key application and legacy remote sites are where up to 8 T1s can be dropped in each direction. Refer to section 1.1.2.

12. General Question. The site type diagrams are useful and helpful. Is it possible for FDOT to also provide a geographical topology diagram for the three networks identified (ITS WAN, SMS, and Turnpike Microwave System)?

Answer to Question 12: A diagram is attached to this answer question.

13. With reference to Section 1.1.2, “The ITS WAN transports are comprised of both long‐haul optical CWDM SONET” may the respondent propose an alternative if the approach satisfies the performance requirements for ITS WAN transport service?

Answer to Question 13: The RFI’s purpose is to provide interested parties an opportunity to advise FDOT how they would engineer and implement an MPLS core, while maintaining full functionality with a legacy, production system as described in section 1.1.2. Additionally, respondents are reminded that this RFI focuses on MPLS as a core routing technology, and responses that are exclusive of MPLS will be considered non-responsive by FDOT. FDOT is not opposed to learning of alternative optical transport technology as long as it is cost-effective, and FDOT’s investment in its fiber infrastructure continues to be the physical layer of the network. FDOT expects to see any such alternative be addressed in Upgrade Scenario #1.

14. With reference to 1.1.3, “The migration plan to a Next Generation Network (NGN) will be undertaken in stages, as funding becomes available, and in key locations where the FDOT has particular business needs to meet.” is the support or replacement of the legacy equipment something that needs to be considered during the deployment period?

Answer to Question 14: Yes. The next generation equipment will replace the legacy equipment in stages. The next generation network must support communications between legacy OSPF domains and the next generation MPLS network sites. Respondents need to understand that there will be segments of the statewide network that will consist solely of legacy equipment, where communications to upgraded next generation network equipment must be maintained. Refer to the last paragraph of section 1.3.2.

15. Does FDOT have a CPE vendor preference for recommended MPLS routing and switching equipment?

Answer to Question 15: No.

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 4

16. Are the management tools limited to those described on page 10 of the RFI document? In other words, is there flexibility for the respondent to recommend additional management devices?

Answer to Question 16: FDOT is open to recommendations of management devices/equipment/software.

17. What is FDOT’s vision for the transition strategy? Is there any tolerance for production impact (i.e. hot cuts)?

Answer to Question 17: Downtime should be minimized with sufficient planning. FDOT will work with its partners to communicate any impacts to production data flows when a cutover will occur in future projects. Respondents are encouraged to describe their cutover strategy and estimate downtime.

18. Does FDOT require the respondent to perform monitoring and management of the new production environment?

Answer to Question 18: No. FDOT will continue to manage and monitor this network internally.

19. Would FDOT require the respondent to provide “on call” consulting resources after initial installation?

Answer to Question 19: No. FDOT has internal staff which is relied upon for these activities. On-call consulting services are not part of the scope of this RFI.

20. What is FDOT’s strategic vision for this network? In other words, is this network a “stand alone” network or will it be integrated with other State systems or will it be required to interoperate with other State networks and systems?

Answer to Question 20: The Statewide ITS Network is a stand-alone network, whose sole mission is to provide statewide connectivity between FDOT Districts, and other interested parties such as Florida’s Turnpike, Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, Central Florida Expressway Authority, SunRail, and local counties and municipalities which operate a transportation management center. At this time, FDOT has no intention to inter-connect this network to the Internet, or any other state agency’s network.

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 5

Diagram for Harris Corporation, in reference to Question #12

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 6

Florida Department of TransportationStatewide Microwave Communications

Infrastructure

Escambia

Santa Rosa

Okaloosa Walton

Holmes Jackson

Washington

Bay

Gulf

WakullaLiberty

Franklin

Leon

Gadsden

Calhoun

Madison

Jeffe

rson

TaylorLafayette

Dixie

Suwannee

Hamilton

Gilchrist

Hills

boro

ughPi

nella

s

Pasco

Manatee

Sarasota

Levy

Alachua

Citrus

Sum

ter

Columbia

BradfordClay

Union

Baker

Nassau

St. Johns

Duval

HendryLee

Collier

Marion

Putnam

Flagler

Volusia

Lake

Charlotte

Hardee

Highlands

Glades

DeSoto

Orange

Osceola

BrevardPolk

Seminole

Indian River

Okeechobee

Palm Beach

Martin

Dade

Monroe

Broward

St. Lucie

Hernando

Port Charlotte

D3 CO|Tallahassee

Marianna FHP

DeFuniak DOT

Mossy Head

Milton DOT

Sneads Weigh Station

Chipley DOT

HoltPensacola D3 TMC

CaryvilleCrestview FHP

Jacaranda Blvd

Tampa Maintenance Ruskin

Fruitville

Orlando South InterchangeJessamineEstero

Tampa DOT/FHP

Canoe Creek Service PlazaTemple Terrace

Turkey Lake Plaza

Orlando RTMCClermont

Sanlando Springs

Wildwood Turnpike

WildwoodOcala DOT

CR 318

Deland DOT

SR 222

US 1 Weigh Station Tallahassee FHP

US 41

Greenville Gopher Ridge

SR 16

Lake City DOT

Saint Johns Rest Area

Sanderson

Baldwin DOT

Jacksonville FHP

SR 136

Bayshore

Jacksonville RCCFalmouth

Aspalaga Madison FHP

Monticello DOT

Quincy FHPSR 6

Yulee

Kenansville Interchange

Yeehaw Junction

Site X

Cocoa FHP

June Park

Mims

Edgewater

Port Orange

Miles City

Lake Worth FHP

Jupiter Interchange

West Palm Beach Interchange

DelRay Beach Interchange

Brevard County Line

90th Avenue

Indrio RoadFort Pierce Interchange

Fort Pierce Maintenance

Fort Pierce Admin

Stuart Interchange

Stuart Maintenance

Florida Gulf Coast University EsteroPompano Beach Interchange

Collier County Rest Area

Miles City

Miccosukee

Naples FHPMcArthur

Andytown

Okeechobee Interchange

Snapper Creek Service Plaza

Coral Reef InterchangeEverglades Academy

Tea Table FillBig Pine Key

TERL

D6 RTMC

D4 RTMC

Golden Glades

Sunguide Center

5MH17H98

SWIFT

Legend

SMS / Turnpike μW

Field Data

Statewide ITS Network | ITS WAN

Management

Leased Circuit

Microwave HUB Site

Remote Site

Pensacola FHP

State EOC

Next Gen Fiber

Microwave Site with Fiber access

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 7

Questions Posed by Vology

1. Can we see a snapshot of your current configuration?

Answer to Question 1: The RFI document should contain enough configuration information about our current network to provide a baseline for developing upgrade strategies. See map above.

2. Are you looking for redundant or HA routers for 10gig?

Answer to Question 2: Carrier-grade equipment is expected to be specified. Respondents should reply with their best design concepts based on the information provided in the RFI.

3. What kind of incription (sic) will you be running, ie SSL?

Answer to Question 3: Encryption is not a specified in the RFI.

4. Is everything going to be encrypted?

Answer to Question 4: No

5. Is your customer facing network currently using MPLS layer 3?

Answer to Question 5: No, the current networks use an OSPF Layer 3 core with statically routed Layer 3 handoff to customer interfaces. Refer to section 1.1.2.

6. Will you require VLAN stacking/VLAN duplication?

Answer to Question 6: Yes, FDOT sees potential value in stacking or duplicating VLANs.

7. Will you be upgrading your fiber backbone to 10 gig? If so, will this be incorporated into this project?

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 8

Answer to Question 7: For the purpose of this RFI, respondents should include equipment to support

today’s 2.5 Gbps SONET architecture, as well as equipment to upgrade to 10 Gbps as well. Respondents

should understand FDOT will be looking at 10 Gpbs or greater upgrades of fiber transport in all future

projects.

8. Are you looking for layer 2 on the internal switches?

Answer to Question 8: FDOT is looking for multi-tenant strategies to provide services over an MPLS core

backbone.

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 9

Questions Posed by Level 3 Communications 1) Ref. Page 3: “Respondents should also include detailed technical information regarding

interconnects, configuration samples, information regarding complexities of adding services/circuits, maintenance, and troubleshooting procedures.”

a. What specific configuration are of interest and on what devices, Layer-2, Layer-3, or

both, Interface, protocol, user groups, security? Answer to Question 1a.: FDOT is interested in respondents proposals to utilize Layer 2 and/or Layer 3 devices and why; and interface types, for each type of site. Based on upgrade scenarios 1 and 2, explain to FDOT how you would design an MPLS core routing strategy which maintains functionality with legacy segments of the network. Please provide configuration file samples, procedures to add services to the MPLS core, and troubleshooting methods to determine the nature of an outage.

b. What specifics on Maintenance and troubleshooting? For example regarding troubleshooting, what examples are required and for what type of problem isolation?

Answer to Question 1b.: FDOT is interested in learning more about the complexities of provisioning MPLS services in a carrier-grade WAN environment, as opposed to Layer 3 OSPF provisioning. Explain troubleshooting methods for problems such as equipment failure, physical layer trouble isolation, and services that fail to deliver traffic to a destination.

2) Ref. Page 4: a. Please provide information on each application and how that data flows between Remote Transportation Management Centers (RTMC). For example the amount of data transferred per camera, or application bandwidth a single user requires for acceptable application performance.

Answer to Question 2: This question is beyond the scope of the RFI. FDOT is seeking MPLS design information. FDOT expects traffic flows will be engineered to best suit their business needs.

3) Limitations and Constraints a. Please share additional information on the CoS requirements, i.e. the traffic and

bandwidth requirements in each of the eight classes? Answer to Question 3a.: This question is beyond the scope of the RFI. FDOT is seeking MPLS design information. FDOT expects traffic flows will be engineered to best suit their business needs; and that specified equipment meets the desired standards.

b. Can you work with 5 or 6 CoS, or will that not work for your application? Answer to Question 3b.: No, FDOT expects to comply with RFC 2474, IEEE 802.1p and 802.1Q standards (and their revisions, if any), as it relates to QoS and CoS.

c. Will customer access to make changes or show command access to the Managed Routers and Switches be required?

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 10

Answer to Question 3c.: FDOT is unclear regarding the term “customer.” FDOT is not interested in services being provided by a service provider on a network other than FDOT’s physical network.

d. Is there a vendor preference for hardware? Answer to Question 3d.: FDOT has no preference for hardware manufacturer at this time.

4) Requirements: a. Will redundant Rendezvous Points (RP) be required? What will the normal ratio be for

source to receivers? Answer to Question 4a.: Yes, with the ability to MSDP between PIM-SM domains. Refer to section 1.2.

b. What are your multicast bandwidth requirements? What is the anticipated number of multicast sources per domain?

Answer to Question 4b: A 10Gbps backbone is sufficient to meet FDOT’s requirements at this point in time.

c. “MPLS core must communicate with two OSPF zero (0) domains” is this meaning that the MPLS network allows LSA packets between OSPF neighbors?

Answer to Question 4c.: Yes, that is absolutely correct. Respondents should explain how this will be accomplished and provide configuration samples.

d. What applications will be marked within the COS/QOS queues? Answer to Question 4d.: The following applications from the list in section 1.1.1 will get marked; Network OAM, a SIP-based voice application, certain multicast traffic, as well as revenue based applications supporting tolling and managed lanes.

e. Currently is there OAM management deployed? What features within an OAM application are required?

Answer to Question 4e.: FDOT does have an OAM product in production. FDOT is exploring alternatives for OAM or MOM equipment/software to replace the existing system. Respondents should present any OAM products that integrate with their strategy to assist FDOT in managing the next generation network.

f. Now many Autonomous Systems will you need? Answer to Question 4f.: If there are any limitations on the number of available AS numbers FDOT could utilize in the next generation equipment, the limitation should be noted in the response.

5) Please provide a current network topology showing Layer 1-4. In addition please provide information on protocols configured, redistribution, segmented traffic, and application data flows.

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 11

Answer to Question 5: This question is beyond the scope of this RFI. Respondents should limit responses to upgrade scenarios 1 and 2. Please refer to the network map above.

6) Please list of all sites addresses - USPS (e911 address) or Latitude / Longitude. Answer to Question 6: See “Answer to Question 5” directly above.

7) Please provide the time/date of all schedulable maintenance windows and duration of the window.

Answer to Question 7: This question is beyond the scope of this RFI.

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 12

Questions Posed by Alcatel Lucent: 1. What is the DS0 physical interface type at the existing Channel Bank (Figures 1.1.2-3 and 1.1.2-4)?

Answer: Four wire or two wire to a type 66 punch down block.

How many DS0 interface(s) at the typical Hub Site?

Answer: Hub sites have 28 T1s. A hub site where DS0 is required to support an

application currently has a channel bank to break out a T1 into its constituent DS0s for

handling the application. A typical hub site need no more than four DS0 interfaces,

where some sites that have voter equipment supporting the 47 MHz radio application

would require no more than 24 DS0.

Respondents should advise FDOT on how DS0s will be transported over an MPLS core.

Respondents should list all configuration options.

How many DS0 interface (s) at the Hub Site with Fiber Optic?

Answer: See above, if and where applicable.

2. For Upgrade Scenario 2, please specify the number of Hub sites and Key Application sites?

Answer: Hub sites = 14; Key application sites = 20 state-wide. However, the number of

key application sites depends upon the network segment to be upgraded. Respondents

should provide a budgetary estimate for upgrading a single key application site, which

should include fiber optic access components, and FDOT will multiply this figure by the

number of key application sites that exist in a segment targeted for an upgrade.

3. In reference to Figure 1.2-1 Interdomian (sic) PIM-SM, is PM-SM a requirement at all hub and applications sites or only certain locations?

Answer: Yes. PIM-SM is a requirement for all MPLS next-generation sites.

RFI-DOT-14/15-9038-RC Page 13