2 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
IntroductionASPIRE - A Study on the Prospects of the Internet for Research and Education
The ASPIRE foresight study has been exploring the implications of potential developments of the Internet up until
2020 and assessing their impact for the Research and Education (R&E) networking community.
In May 2011, a consultative workshop was held to ascertain what the community considers to be the four topics
that are most likely to have a significant impact on the sector.
The topics chosen as a result of the workshop were:
› Middleware and Managing Data and Knowledge in a Data-rich World
› Cloud Services
› Adoption of Mobile Services
› The Future Roles of NRENs
Four panels of experts were convened during the latter part of 2011, and worked until the spring of 2012,
gathering material and reaching a consensus on the major issues.
This document is the work ASPIRE panel on:
The Future Roles of NRENs
The conclusions and recommendations from each of the panels will be discussed in a second ASPIRE workshop in
September 2012. The workshop will validate the work of the panels and determine a community strategy for the
future.
The ASPIRE study team at TERENA wish to express their sincere thanks and appreciation for the work undertaken
by the panel members and leaders.
John Dyer Magda Haver
The ASPIRE foresight Study was funded from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 238875, relating to the project ‘Multi-Gigabit European Research and Education Network and Associated Services (GN3)’.TERENA is solely responsible for this publication, which does not represent the opinion of the European Community; nor is the European Community responsible for any use that may be made of this report.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
3 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
Contents1 ExECuTIvE SuMMARy ________________________________________________________________________ 6
2 INTRoDuCTIoN To THE NREN FuTuRES STuDy oF ASPIRE __________________________ 7
2.1 NREN Futures Panel ______________________________________________________________________ 7
2.2 Data Collection and SWoT Analysis ___________________________________________________ 7
2.3 Survey Analysis ___________________________________________________________________________ 9
2.4 Conclusions from the NREN Client Questionnaire ________________________________ 10
2.4.1 Respondent Group: _____________________________________________________________ 10
2.5 Summary of the Analysis ______________________________________________________________ 10
2.5.1 Important Current NREN Services ____________________________________________ 10
2.5.2 Most Important Future Services ______________________________________________ 10
2.5.3 Services Bought on the Market by Clients even though the
NREN Provides Them __________________________________________________________________ 11
2.5.4 Relations between the NRENs and their Client Communities ___________ 11
2.5.5 Perception of the NREN by their Client Communities _____________________ 11
2.5.6 Service Requests to the NRENs by their Client Communities ____________ 11
back
to c
onte
nts
page
4 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
3 THE CuRRENT PoSITIoN oF NRENS______________________________________________________ 12
3.1 Competition _____________________________________________________________________________ 12
3.2 Aggregation _____________________________________________________________________________ 13
3.3 Neutrality and Trust ____________________________________________________________________ 13
3.4 Competitive Advantages ______________________________________________________________ 14
3.5 Industry and NRENs ____________________________________________________________________ 14
3.6 Likely Developments for NRENs ______________________________________________________ 15
3.6.1 Commodity Services ____________________________________________________________ 15
3.6.2 Connectivity ______________________________________________________________________ 15
3.6.3 Services ___________________________________________________________________________ 16
3.6.4 Capacity Building and Collaboration _________________________________________ 16
3.7 Policy Issues _____________________________________________________________________________ 16
3.7.1 The NRENs as a Common Good ______________________________________________ 18
3.7.2 Connectivity beyond National Boundaries _________________________________ 18
3.7.3 The Global Economic Crisis ____________________________________________________ 19
3.7.4 European R&E Network Policy _________________________________________________ 20
3.7.5 Addressing Policy Issues _______________________________________________________ 20
4 FuTuRE PoSITIoNING ______________________________________________________________________ 21
4.1 Governance of the NREN Community ______________________________________________ 22
4.2 Governance of NRENs __________________________________________________________________ 22
4.3 Collaboration between NRENs _______________________________________________________ 23
4.4 NREN Services ___________________________________________________________________________ 23
4.5 NREN Markets ___________________________________________________________________________ 23
4.6 NRENs in a National Environment ___________________________________________________ 24
back
to c
onte
nts
page
5 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
5 ISSuES & RECoMMENDATIoNS ___________________________________________________________ 25
6 GLoSSARy _____________________________________________________________________________________ 27
7 CoNTRIBuToRS ______________________________________________________________________________ 32
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference of ASPIRE NREN Futures Panel ________________________ 34
Appendix 2: Detailed Results of NREN SWoT Analysis ___________________________________ 35
Appendix 3: Summary Results of the NREN Managers’ Questionnaire ________________ 38
back
to c
onte
nts
page
6 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
1 ExECuTIvE SuMMARyThe NREN Futures study is a sub-study of the ASPIRE project and was set up to look at the current state of NRENs
in Europe. From this, recommendations can be made as to how the NRENs should develop to take advantage of
developments in technology and business practice in the next five to ten years.
The study used a variety of methods: questionnaires, surveys, interviews and the expertise of the panel members,
to collect and analyse the current status, and then to predict how the NREN environment is likely to change in the
future. A remarkably consistent view of future developments emerged from the different parts of the study and a
range of recommendations and findings are detailed in the study.
Because the state of development of the NRENs differs widely, the list of recommendations will be applicable to
individual NRENs in different ways and should be adapted and adopted by the NRENs, as they deem appropriate.
The recommendations are:
› The European Research and Education (R&E) Networking Community (NRENs, DANTE, TERENA, and user
stakeholders) need an efficient, strategic management body to act as a single point of contact, capable of
responding quickly and with authority.
› under the auspices of this body, a high-level task force should be created in which decision-makers can work
together to define a single, strategic vision for pan-European R&E Networking. Failure to achieve this may lead
to fragmentation of services.
› NRENs should re-consider their funding models and move to more diversified and sustainable models.
This could embrace close collaboration with Public Service Networks but may require re-framing of some
regulatory positions, connection policies, and acceptable use policies. A major goal should be to increase
inter-institutional collaboration, aggregation of demand for joint procurement, and sharing of services.
› NRENs will need to take a strategic approach to their business planning and delivery of services, and develop a
comprehensive understanding of their own user-base, including the needs of their international users and the
external operating environment.
› It is recommended that a European user-requirements compendium be developed by TERENA so that the R&E
network providers have a strategic view of the demand-side of the sector.
› NRENs should not compete with the commercial providers, particularly on price, but should act as a trusted
broker that is an integral part of the community. They should provide expertise, aggregate demand, and add
value through negotiation, including the integration of support for community AAI systems.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
7 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
2 INTRoDuCTIoN To THE NREN FuTuRES STuDy oF ASPIRE2.1 NREN Futures Panel
The work-plan was designed with three major phases: data collection, analysis, and reporting, although there
were areas of common interest between the different phases.
The work was carried out by email, on the TERENA Wiki, and by video Conference (vC). Several meetings were
held by video Conference in December 2011, as well as in the first three months of 2012. 1
Email would appear to be the medium of choice for communications amongst the panel, which may reflect on the
age and background of the panel members. The fact that email is a ‘push technology’ may also be a contributory
factor.
2.2 Data Collection and SWOT AnalysisThe early part of the data-collection phase was intended to identify suitable sources of information and to look at
what the NRENs actually do on a day-to-day basis. Sources of information, such as the TERENA Compendium 2, the
GÉANT Expert Group report 3 and some internal TERENA surveys were used to determine what extra information
was required and what was generally available, in order to avoid ‘survey-fatigue’.
Part of the data collection included a SWoT (Strengths, Weaknesses, opportunities, and Threats) analysis on the
concept of an NREN. This produced some interesting results and involved some major brainstorming amongst the
panel. The SWoT analysis laid the groundwork for the various sub-topics in the data-collection phase. The results
of the SWoT analysis can be found in Appendix 2: Detailed Results of NREN SWoT Analysis.
A questionnaire was constructed and sent to the NREN managers through the TERENA GA mailing list. This was
to elicit their strategic views on what was likely to happen to NRENs in the next five to ten years. At the same
time, they were asked if they would allow their clients to be interviewed through a questionnaire about their
relationship with the NREN. Approximately 50% of the NREN managers responded to the NREN Managers’
Questionnaire and most of these did not want their clients interviewed through a questionnaire. This is significant,
reflecting on the relationships between the NRENs and their clients.
1 It is interesting to note that, despite VC being a mature technology, there were numerous problems in the video conference meetings. Most of these related to person computer based solutions, but if the experts from the NRENs cannot manage these processes, how are the end users in the universities and research institutions?
2 TERENA Compendium of NRENs: www.terena.org/compendium3 GÉANT Expert Group Report Knowledge without Borders: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/geg-report.pdf
back
to c
onte
nts
page
8 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
The results of the client questionnaire were consequently very disappointing, even though the EuNIS mailing list
was also used to circulate the request. Due to the low numbers that responded, it was not possible to draw any
significant conclusions. Despite this, the responses that were received were very much in line with the responses
from other feedback
A number of visionary leaders in the NREN community, in the region and beyond were consulted on their views of
the future of NRENs in Europe. A list of questions was prepared to steer the conversation in a coherent direction,
and while these questions have been answered, for the most part, the interviews ended up being quite wide
ranging, as was to be expected.
The final component of the data-collection phase was the collection of the views of the panel members,
themselves, and several sessions were held to gather their views. As expected, their views were in line with the
general information collected from other sources.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
9 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
2.3 Survey AnalysisA summary of the responses to the NREN Managers’ Questionnaire can be found in Appendix 3.
Since there is much diversity in terms of NREN maturity, positioning with respect to the “Digital Divide and local
factors, the panel assigned each of the responding NRENs to one of three categories
NREN Groupings
CAzScienceAAyNet
Western Europe and Israel: SUNET, UNINETT, Belnet, IUCC, SWITCH, NordunetACOnet, RedIRIS, UNI•C, DFN, HEAnet
Eastern Europe: NIIF/HUNGARNET, CESNET, CARNet
Emerging Europe: ANAS, CyNet, LITNET, MARnet, RENAM, SANETSigmaNet, UIIP
› Western Europe and Israel: SUNET, UNINET, Belnet, IUCC, SWITCH, NORDUnet, ACOnet, RedIRIS, UNI•C, DFN,
HEAnet
› Eastern Europe: NIIF/HuNGARNET, CESNET, CARNet
› Emerging Europe: AzScienceNet, CyNet, LITNET, MarNET, MREN, RENAM, SANET, SigmaNet, uIIP
The grouping of NRENs was made on a geographical basis, but it was heavily influenced by the NRENs that
actually responded. Some important NRENs did not respond to the survey.
A detailed summary of the results of the survey can be found in: Conclusions from the NREN Survey
1. Three quarters of the NRENs that answered the questionnaire have a written strategy. Few of these
strategies are available publicly or in English, so no quantitative statements can be made. However, this fact
back
to c
onte
nts
page
10 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
may indicate that strategic thinking and its dissemination may not have been given sufficient priority by the
NRENs and that the level of detail of these strategies may vary significantly between NRENs.
2. Today, connectivity is considered as the common strategic service provided by all NRENs, followed by
higher-level services such as PKI and AAI. Most NRENs see cloud services as a key service in the future.
However, none gave specifics of which services should be offered through cloud technology.
3. The environment that NRENs face varies between the different countries (“all NRENs are local”) and no
common NREN vision for future services has emerged. As a sign of this diversity, 50% of NRENs do not expect
to target new markets in the next five years, twenty per cent thought they might move into the public sector,
and thirty per cent planned to grow their market-base in educational establishments.
4. The formulation and execution of a successful strategy is of great importance to NRENs, given the fact that
connectivity alone may not be sufficient to guarantee their sustainability.
5. NRENs tend to be firmly established and trusted within their community: they are considered to be a part
of the community and not just a service provider. This gives them a significant competitive advantage in
intermediation between other suppliers and users, and it separates them from commercial operators.
2.4 Conclusions from the NREN Client Questionnaire
2.4.1 Respondent Group:unlike the responses to the NREN Managers’ Questionnaire, which are well distributed over NRENs in North, East,
West, and South Europe, the twenty-nine responses to the NREN Client Questionnaire show a heavy bias toward
only a few areas, in particular, Spain and Cyprus. Most likely, this has to do with the lack of direct ties between
TERENA and the NREN clients, with the exception of those that are involved in TERENA activities or whose NREN
took an active role in finding respondents. Many NRENs are hesitant to “bother” their clients with questionnaires
too often. Therefore, it is impossible to infer strong, general conclusions from the answers to the questionnaire, let
alone analyse the differences across Europe. However, some commonalities can be found. In addition, responses
to an in-depth client questionnaire from HEAnet have been analysed to validate the findings of the NREN Client
Questionnaire.
2.5 Summary of the Analysis
2.5.1 Important Current NREN ServicesThe majority of the respondents identify connectivity (IP, lightpaths, or point-to-point connections) as the main
service offered by the NREN. Services, such as server certificates, federation, and CERT are also mentioned as
being core. Managed access to services like Gmail, and Amazon Cloud Services are not identified as critical by the
responding users.
2.5.2 Most Important Future ServicesIn contrast with the previous item, the majority of clients named cloud services as the most important future
service. This probably means that the NRENs do not offer cloud services, but their clients would like them to do so.
Federation services and mobility are also mentioned frequently. In general, NREN clients expect their NREN to act
as a trusted party for many services where it is advantageous for them to join forces. Brokering, coordination, legal
support, and joint procurement are explicitly mentioned.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
11 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
2.5.3 Services Bought on the Market by Clients even though the NREN Provides ThemInstitutions in the R&E community buy their services through their national NREN, if at all possible. The exceptions
to this are the few institutions that use cloud services that are offered by, for example, Amazon. Interestingly
enough, in the next five years none of the respondents expect to bypass the NREN in order to obtain services that
are offered by the market.
The reasons that are mentioned are the price/quality ratio, the strategic fit with the NREN, and solidarity (“club-
NREN”).
Conversely, the NREN clients do not expect to offer their own customers more autonomy in selecting service
providers. It is unlikely that the NRENs will be able to have much influence on the use of “free” cloud services, such
as Gmail, Dropbox, and Box.
2.5.4 Relations between the NRENs and their Client CommunitiesAlmost all respondents report that they participate in NREN activities or are represented on the NREN board. This
questions how selective the sample for the questionnaire was. Since respondents were approached through ties
with the NRENs, it is very likely that the only active participants were those that participate in NREN activities.
2.5.5 Perception of the NREN by their Client CommunitiesAlmost all respondents emphasize the role of the NREN as the hub for collaboration. Even though connectivity is
identified as the most important service that the NREN offers, it is, at the same time, a service that often can be
acquired for a competitive price on the market. Therefore, it seems logical that in order to remain successful, the
NRENs need to focus on their collaboration activities and, indeed, expand this area of activity.
Some of the challenges facing the clients and their needs are worth enumerating:
› budget and resource constraints (grant reduction, recruitment embargo, value for money);
› mobility-related aspects (how to cater for mobile devices, security, number of devices and their types,
ubiquitous access, coverage);
› cloud services (external to institute, integration in local services, storage, virtual machine services), and
demand for new services;
› managing data;
› multimedia services (steaming, conferencing).
2.5.6 Service Requests to the NRENs by their Client CommunitiesBoth the ASPIRE and HEAnet surveys identified the following as services that users would like their NRENs to
provide:
› cloud services (personal and group academic services, integration with local services, storage);
› resilience of connectivity (the strategic importance of connectivity, disaster recovery);
› workshops on third-party systems and services;
› hosting of virtual machines;
› 24/7 monitoring of critical LAN infrastructure;
› framework agreements (software), voIP (SIP trunks), virtualisation of desktops, video Conferencing on more
devices (including web-based), mobile applications (shared development of mobile application);
› security services (certificates, MAN/WAN, firewalling).
back
to c
onte
nts
page
12 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
3 THE CuRRENT PoSITIoN oF NRENSSeveral European NRENs have been in business, in one form or another, for over twenty-five years. The NRENs
have grown from best-efforts projects that serve a limited community, to highly professional providers of reliable
networks that are capable of supporting mission-critical services. In the 1980’s, it was unusual for the network to
be “at-risk” for several hours each week in order to carry out essential maintenance and upgrades. Today, users
demand availability in excess of 99.99%, with millisecond fallback to redundant backup. During the lifetime of the
oldest NRENs, network capacity has increased over 1,000,000 fold (from 9.6kps to 100Gbps).
During the late 1980’s, NRENs sprang up to satisfy the growing desire of researchers and educators to
communicate, and to share and exchange resources with their colleagues and students, irrespective of
geographic location. At the time, the incumbent network owners and operators did not focus on data-
transmission as a major traffic component of what they regarded as their “telephone networks”.
For most of their evolution, NRENs have been innovative, and have made themselves into a useful resource for
the R&E community by taking existing equipment and resources, using them in novel ways, and developing the
things that were needed.
Liberalisation of the telecommunications market, the increasing commoditisation of ISP services, pressure on
NRENs to reduce costs and nature of the research required, have contributed to a shift in balance of innovation
to the commercial sector. There is a common feeling that the NRENs are currently falling behind as an engine of
innovation. This raises several challenges to the future of NRENs.
3.1 CompetitionWhich other organisations are currently supplying or are able to offer services to the institutions that make up the
NRENs’ traditional constituency?
Commercial Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have portfolios of services that include basic IP connectivity at
speeds between 1 and 100 Gbps. ISPs can offer services, such as email services, webhosting, collaborative
document production, and storage. Similarly, cloud service providers 4 provide a wide range of on-line services
that can satisfy the computing, data processing, and storage requirements of many users in the R&E community.
A major issue currently facing all NRENs is what they can offer that is technically and/or economically equal to or
better than the services offered by commercial ISPs or cloud service providers?
The biggest difference between NRENs and commercial ISPs is that of the NREN is part of the R&E community, has
an in-depth understanding of its users’ requirements and expectations, and is not motivated by profit. In itself,
this is insufficient to differentiate the NREN from the commercial ISP. However, ISPs seem to be generally unable
or unwilling to tailor their standard service offerings to meet the non-standard requirements of the academic
community. While commodity services from a commercial supplier may be cheaper than those provided by the
NREN, the inflexibility in the commodity offering may be seen as either an advantage or a disadvantage.
4 Wikipedia lists over 100 cloud service providers at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cloud_computing_providers
back
to c
onte
nts
page
13 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
A Finding of the Study: NRENs are able to work with community users to pilot and develop services that meet the
specific needs of particular sectors of the community.
Recommendations:
› make sure that NRENs pursue constant interaction with clients. If possible, include communications with the
end-users (students, lecturers/teachers and researchers);
› try to know the clients and their working plans in order to meet their needs;
› react quickly to new developments (e.g., client mergers and service sharing by clients);
› pilot possible new services with clients and users to make sure the NREN is pro-active with regard delivery of
services;
› try to let the clients take an active part in your plans and developments.
3.2 AggregationIt is a common feature of markets that bulk buying brings with it economies of scale, both for the supplier and the
customer. NRENs are in a position to procure pervasive national backbone network services on behalf of a group
of NREN clients – often many hundreds. Hence, NRENs can make a saving by the procurement of a single network,
rather than the have clients or groups of clients procure their own connections to the Internet. Not only does this
offer an immediate saving on direct costs, but it also allows for the concentration of technical, procurement, and
operational expertise, freeing individual institutions from these burdens.
A Finding of the Study: There is strong evidence 5 that the benefits of aggregation-obtained procurement of network
infrastructure by the NREN can be replicated in other related areas.
Recommendations:
› NRENs should explore additional areas where aggregation can bring savings in costs, and improvements in
services and support within their own constituencies;
› NRENs should explore the opportunities for procurement by pan-European, joint NREN consortia and inter-
NREN service development and delivery;
› NREN networks and services are directly or indirectly funded, to a large extent, from the public purse and can
be regarded a common good, albeit with a specific, well-bounded role. Public Service Networks have similar
characteristics. Synergies for sharing expertise and costs should be explored.
3.3 Neutrality and TrustNRENs have generally emerged from projects or initiatives of the community and for the community. Most have
transformed into standalone, not-for-profit organisations, which are inherently regarded as part of the community
that they serve. The advantage of this is that NRENs work for and on behalf of their community in a neutral
manner, without obligations to one supplier or another. Although constrained by finite budgets, this has allowed
the NRENs to “do the right thing” - to provide the best possible outcome for their clients rather than satisfy
proprietary commercial demands.
European NRENs have served their communities, in some cases, for more than twenty-five years and have
consequently earned the respect and trust of their network users.
5 Some examples include: RedIRIS spam suppression, JANET PSN collaboration savings, SURFdiensten software deals, HEANET 3G services, TERENA Certificate Service and the SWITCHpki
back
to c
onte
nts
page
14 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
A Finding of the Study: In most cases, the relationship between client and NREN has developed into a partnership of
collaboration rather than that of consumer and supplier.
Recommendation: NRENs should continue to strengthen their position as integral partners with their community.
3.4 Competitive AdvantagesPossible key factors:
› extensive knowledge of how academia works and the real requirements of the academic community;
› established relationships with key decision-takers (national and international funding bodies, government
entities, Eu, other academic institutions);
› established relationships across all customer segments (e.g., from networking personnel to university
management);
› trusted, neutral stakeholder and considered “part of the academic club”;
› number of income sources; diversity of sources of income, and independent of a few customers or funding
bodies;
› economies of scale (of markets and products);
› leadership in technology, innovation, and markets;
› price of products;
› combined offerings of service chains: offering services in combinations that are important for the academic
sector, e.g., eduroam®, AAI, and broadband connectivity together with functionalities not provided by
commercial providers;
› services that are custom-tailored to the requirements of the academic sector.
The study has shown that NRENs have a competitive advantage in client relationships in the academic and
research environment. They are also able to target services that are specific to the needs of their current clients
and that cannot be bought easily in the market place.
However, they are at a disadvantage with respect to their dependence on one, relatively small market segment,
economies of scale, technological innovation, and price.
3.5 Industry and NRENsHistorically, NRENs and the main commercial players in the Internet industry were a natural fit for the evolving
Internet. The industry players were challenging the status quo dominated by the incumbent operators, and the
NRENs were trying to establish a global network for R&E, not tied to those incumbents. Today this relationship
is under pressure. The Internet has become big business and the challengers of yesterday have become the
incumbents of today. At the same time, the NRENs have developed into, or must develop into, professionally run
organisations that can guarantee the required service levels for their clients.
A few challenges can be observed in this changed relationship:
› NRENs have an innovation cycle of five to ten years for their core infrastructure. At the time of an upgrade
of the network, significant amounts of money are invested. However, a relatively low amount of on-going
investment is committed after such an upgrade. often the suppliers disband the teams dedicated to the
NREN, because of their revenue-driven models. They do not stay up-to-date with the requirements of the
NRENs and this potentially results in less than optimal offers.
› Another challenge is that in an attempt to stay ‘vendor neutral’, the NRENs purchase services individually from
suppliers and may have to ignore bundles of integrated services that might be available.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
15 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
Pricing models that are successful in the enterprise- and service provider-markets are based on the bundling
of a number of services, to provide the costs savings of integration to both the supplier and the customer.
Perhaps the main problem is that industry no longer perceives NRENs as cutting-edge customers, at least, for
network connectivity. In the past, industry did early field trials and developments with the NREN community,
but now the perception is that the often complex arrangements (“special needs”) that the NRENs request are
not worth the effort, because of the one-off nature of such requirements. This, in turn, leads to the offering of
“standard” products and a resulting lack of involvement with the commercial developers.
Lastly, unlike the relations in the enterprise and service provider markets, which last for many years, the NREN
market is relatively volatile. In addition, the required public procurement procedures are often lengthy and
intricate. This requirement makes a large investment by an industry player in an NREN a risky business.
Possible steps
Whereas shorter innovation cycles of the network are neither realistic nor possible, the same does not hold true
for other services. It would be useful for industry if the NRENs could generate a more continuous procurement
stream, making it easier for industry players to invest in a longer-term relationship. It is also advisable to focus on
collaboration with industry in other services, and not just on connectivity. The NREN community is leading edge
in mobility and federation. It may be advisable to invest, at board level, in relationships with the vendors of these
technologies.
3.6 Likely Developments for NRENs
3.6.1 Commodity ServicesA product or service becomes a commodity when it is available from a large number of sources as an essentially
undifferentiated offering, and at a highly competitive price. Staples, such as grain, milk, and memory chips are
examples of commodities.
In common with other products and services, data network connectivity and application-level services, such as
email and remote storage were initially only available to specialists, either on an experimental or restricted basis.
In the twenty-first century, broadband access to the Internet is available to a large percentage of the citizens
of Europe (but with significant differences in quality of coverage, depending upon geographic location). Email,
storage, and applications including calendaring, collaborative document production, and social networking are
commonly available at no charge with other paid services, which are available at commodity prices. Even national
mobile data connectivity is becoming affordable for the average citizen in some places.
It is likely that the range and availability of such services will grow rather than contract over time.
The difficult question that has to be answered is that if this plethora of services is available at commodity prices,
what is the role of the NREN?
3.6.2 ConnectivityBasic commercial Internet services are not a viable option for most institutions; ISPs can typically only offer
Mbps of bandwidth and may often suffer from congestion due to high contention ratios. Connections of higher
capacities (Gbps) are available on the market for short-term lease (which is expensive), for long-term lease,
exclusive long-term right of use (IRu), or for ownership.
NRENs have the expertise to procure, operate, and manage national networks, and can obtain bulk-purchasing
deals by operating as a single procurement agent on behalf of all of their clients. various procurement
back
to c
onte
nts
page
16 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
instruments, such as framework agreements, can satisfy the local requirements of individual clients at an
advantageous, nationally negotiated price.
At the international level, NRENs collaborate through DANTE to provide the pan-European GÉANT network, with
its associated intercontinental links. Additionally, some NRENs procure their own, dedicated international links,
sometimes by the provisioning of cross border fibres.
3.6.3 ServicesNRENs do not routinely provide email services to end users (although there are some exceptions). The end-user
institutions usually run their own mail servers and administer the access rights. It is not unusual for new users
that are entering the R&E sector to already have some experience and a preference for a particular mail service.
It seems unreasonable to force these users to use an institutional email system if they prefer to use other facilities.
The NREN can provide added-value to the community by negotiating preferential terms and performance from
the commodity suppliers, and indeed, can mandate the use of community-compatible AAI systems that manage
access control.
The increasing need for commodity storage and computing power is an area in which some NRENs are already
taking an active lead. Some NRENs are creating value for their users by brokering deals with commercial suppliers
on behalf of the whole community of users and putting middleware solutions in place to provide transparent
access to private or public cloud services.
The NRENs could provide value for their customers through the deployment or brokering of SaaS applications
such as spam-filtering, on-line collaboration, customer relations management, and analytics.
3.6.4 Capacity Building and CollaborationSome NRENs have developed pools of world class, technical expertise in the increasingly complex field of
delivering advanced network services. Some smaller NRENs rely on the collaborative nature of the NREN
community to assist them. Smaller end-user institutions often have difficulty in providing a sufficient level of
technical and management skills to deliver a comprehensive range of on-line services for their users. Formally
building technical capacity and expertise is a valuable role for the NRENs and their community. Activities could
include the exchange of expertise, training, provision of best practice guides, or the provision of services by
NRENs for one another. With its reputation and position of trust, TERENA is an ideal organisation to facilitate
growth in such collaboration.
3.7 Policy IssuesMany NRENS started life during the 1980’s as best-effort projects to serve a very limited constituency of users that
were centred in universities and publicly funded research centres. As NRENs grew and matured, some of them
began connecting a wider community, including commercial research centres, publishers, content providers,
museums, and in some cases, government departments.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
17 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
Who may and who may not be connected to these restricted communities has been enshrined in policy
documents that define the NRENs.These include:
› Connection Policy (CP) 6, 7
› Acceptable use Policy (AuP) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
› Statues and Articles of Association 13
This rigid definition of the limits of service has enabled NRENs to operate as network providers to a closed user
group that does not offer services to the general public.
Some NRENs provide service to a wider community of clients, but still within the constraints of their governing
rules and regulations. This expanding use of the NREN networks has brought with it many advantages. This
should not be a problem for the commercial providers of these services because the NRENs usually procure
their underlying infrastructure on the open market. NRENs, such as DFN in Germany, have chosen to stick very
close to their original remit to provide connectivity and service to their original constituency of universities and
publicly-funded research institutes.
Potential areas for collaboration include interoperability and improved connectivity to a wider group of related
users. The established and neutrally minded expertise of the NREN can be utilised to support a larger community
of clients. Not least, the advantages of aggregation of demand brings with it economic benefits that help counter
the effects of the current global economic crisis, which deserves special mention here.
6 http://webarchive.ja.net/services/publications/policy/connection-policy.html7 http://www.surfnet.nl/en/organisatie/instellingen/Pages/default.aspx8 http://www.ja.net/documents/publications/policy/aup.pdf9 http://www.renater.fr/IMG/pdf/charte_en.pdf10 http://www.sigmanet.lv/usepolicy/en/11 https://openwiki.uninett.no/norstore:acceptable_use_policy12 http://www.heanet.ie/about/aup13 http://www.dfn.de/en/association/
back
to c
onte
nts
page
18 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
3.7.1 The NRENs as a Common Good 14 NRENs have been set up as not-for-profit organisations, funded either directly or indirectly from the public purse.
In the case of direct funding, the money comes from the government to the NREN, as a contract or a grant. In
indirect funding, money comes from the universities and research institutes, which pay for the services they
receive from the NREN. In the indirect case, it is likely that the money paid to the NREN comes substantially from
public sources.
There is a broad spectrum of directly - or indirectly funded NRENs in Europe, with few at the far ends of the
spectrum and the majority spread between the two extremes. 15
The assertion is that the core funding of the NREN for the basic services they provide to the community they
serve comes from public sources, and that their core activities are for a common good. The general public derives
benefit from this common good through the beneficial effects on economic growth and innovation provided by
good education and research.
The oECD Reviews of Regional Innovation in 2011 states: The general consensus… is that the driving force behind
long-term economic growth is science, technology, and innovation in its different forms and facets 16
3.7.2 Connectivity beyond National BoundariesNetwork connectivity is the prime enabler of collaboration, and without it, research, education, and society
would be a much poorer place. In the past, whilst NRENs had put in place ad-hoc connectivity links to specific
destinations, what was really needed was a well-designed comprehensive backbone network linking the NRENs in
a non-discriminatory manner.
Stimulated by partial funding from the European Community, such a backbone network has been progressively
developed, leading to the present incarnation of the cutting-edge GÉANT backbone network that connects 40
countries and reaches tens of millions of users in Europe.
14 The term ‘COMMON GOOD’ defines a specific “good” that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community, in this case the R&E community.15 TERENA Compendium http://www.terena.org/activities/compendium/2011/pdf/TER-C11-complete-web.pdf see page 94.16 OECD 2011: Regions and Innovation Policy http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/regions-and-innovation-policy_9789264097803-en
back
to c
onte
nts
page
19 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
As the report of the GÉANT Expert Group 17 remarks, “GÉANT has become not just an infrastructure for e-Science
but an in-silico realisation of European integration”.
The panel agree that GÉANT has helped Europe become a world leader in many areas. GÉANT is an innovation-
environment and ideas-generator that drives the development of new networking technologies and services.
3.7.3 The Global Economic CrisisMost people are personally aware of the effects of the Global Economic Crisis, with its origins in 2007-2008. The
consequences for governments have been severe and have resulted in an increased search for savings, while at
the same time preserving or improving the level of services that they can deliver to their citizens. The idea that
improving services while cutting costs might seem impossible to achieve, the paradigm of online information and
self-service associated with e-Government, e-Health and, indeed, e-Society makes it achievable.
Some National Responses to the Economic Crisis
Greece – The Greek government has identified cloud computing as a way of reducing costs for the provision of
computing and storage facilities for publicly-funded institutions in Greece. The Greek government has asked
GRNET (The Greek NREN) to put in place and manage an Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) system, which they have
done. The okeanos 18 system is currently in alpha test phase.
France – The French government has asked RENATER (the French NREN) to provide optical network connectivity
to government departments.
united Kingdom – JANET (the British NREN) has been working collaboratively with several uK Public Service
Networks to improve service and reduce costs.
Ireland – The higher education funding body has decided to increase the economies of scale of the educational
systems by merging educational institutes and supporting organisations. Furthermore, it recognises that use of
shared services is a way to reduce costs. HEAnet (the Irish NREN) can play a role in this sharing of services.
united States of America – The uS Recovery Act 19 is putting billions of taxpayers’ money into stimulating
investment and into pushing public and private network service and connectivity into the twenty-first century.
u.S. uCAN 20 is a project established to ensure that the advanced applications and national networking
requirements of community anchor institutions (CAIs) - including K-12 schools, libraries, community colleges,
health centres, hospitals, and public safety organisations - are understood, coordinated, and fulfilled. u.S. uCAN
will leverage the upgraded Internet2 network to deliver network services to CAIs, and will provide support
services to CAI sectors similar to those Internet2 provides to its research and higher education members, but
tailored to the specific needs of CAIs.
The European union – At a press conference on 19 october 2011, the President of the European Commission
announced 21 the Commission’s proposal for connecting Europe. The proposal for the 50 billion euro Connecting
Europe Facility (CEF) includes an investment of over nine billion euro in broadband connectivity 22, of which
two billion euro is earmarked to improve the Digital Service Infrastructure (DSI). The major component of the
proposed DSI will be a Trans-European high-speed backbone connecting public administrations serving the Eu27
countries.
17 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/geg-report.pdf18 https://cms.okeanos.grnet.gr/about/what/19 http://www.whitehouse.gov/recovery/innovations/building-platform-private-sector-innovation20 http://www.usucan.org/21 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/688&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en22 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/709&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
back
to c
onte
nts
page
20 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
3.7.4 European R&E Network PolicyAt the national level, NRENs provide services to their clients, many of whom are represented on the NREN
governance bodies. In theory, this gives these users of the networks a voice in how the network is managed and
developed. Mature NRENs undertake extensive customer relations work using account managers and product
managers to ensure a good two-way flow of information and to provide an opportunity for the users to influence
NREN policy – for instance, the Connection Policy and Acceptable use Policy.
For the most part, GÉANT provides pan-European connectivity although bi-lateral, cross-border fibres,
national/regional transcontinental links. other dedicated connectivity is quite common. GÉANT is operated by
DANTE - Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe. DANTE is a limited liability “not for profit” company,
registered in the united Kingdom, and owned by a subset of European NRENs.
From an external perspective, the precise decision-making roles between the governing bodies of DANTE (the
company) and GÉANT (the project) appear blurred.
DANTE is governed by the DANTE Board of Directors and by its shareholders, and is managed by its DANTE
management team. The GÉANT project is governed and managed by the GÉANT Executive Committee, the NREN-
PC, the GÉANT Project Management Team, and the Project office.
To complicate things further, DANTE’s sister organisation, TERENA, also provides a forum in which NREN managers
meet and discuss issues, including policy. TERENA has its own governance structure, including the TERENA
General Assembly and the TERENA Executive Committee.
To complicate the situation even more, additional groups that make or recommend policy operate in this space
such as e-IRG 23 and EGI 24.
3.7.5 Addressing Policy IssuesThere are large differences between the European NRENs in terms of funding, staffing, national policy, existing
client base, and outlook. The NRENs would be best served by being able to express themselves to the external
world (international customers, the Commission, and networkers on other continents) with a single voice. The
first step in achieving this is to constitute a neutral forum in which a strategic vision of the future can be framed
in such a way that it addresses the varying needs of the constituent NRENs. This strategic vision may or may not
embrace full participation in the Connecting Europe Facility/Digital Service Infrastructure (CEF/DSI) proposals.
However, it should ensure that the NRENs contribute their technical and managerial expertise as an input to the
CEF/DSI readiness study.
23 The e-Infrastructure Reflection Group http://www.e-irg.eu/24 European Grid Infrastructure http://www.egi.eu/
back
to c
onte
nts
page
21 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
4 FuTuRE PoSITIoNING!""#$%&'()"*+"$',
-'($./.*"01.$('2%3
435.6)13-"*$2").51'&3
5'$%"7$*"/131'&$5.%"23$
435.6)13-"*$2").51'&3
./2'33$/835'0"2$3"+0"&53
52835"*9$&"852.)$35.%"-')*"2
4/'&'01"3$',$3/.)"
!1:"231!/.51'&$',$
&/'0"$3'82/"3
;&&':.51'&<$0.2%"5$)".*"2
=2'*8/5$#21/"
>'061&"*$',,"21&+3$
',$3"2:1/"$/-.1&3
>835'0?5.1)'2"*$3"2:1/"3
.//'2*1&+$5'$/835'0"2$
2"@812"0"&53
4&:12'&0"&5 A.2%"5$/-.2./5"21351/3 =2'*8/5$',,"21&+3
)'(
0"*180
-1+-
$%&.'/*/*5'9:5+6/+;'
$(*/'(*+
NRENS
NRENS
NRENS
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Like any other organisation operating in an environment where there are a variety of suppliers and products, it is
vital that the NRENs fully understand their strengths and weaknesses and the threats and opportunities that are
around them, before making their future operational plans.
For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that a NREN behaves and competes in a competitive environment
where alternative suppliers are able to deliver similar ranges of services to the community that is served by the
NREN. For example, the NREN (or the computer centres of the connected clients) may invest significant amounts
of human and financial resource in running basic services, such as email, spam filtering, or storage. Such services
are now available on the commercial market at competitive prices or apparently free at the point of delivery.
Therefore, offering such services may not represent the best use of NREN resources. The NREN may be capable of
delivering more specialised services that are unavailable on the market.
Therefore, it is vital that NRENs step back from a “business as usual” perspective and undertake a strategic analysis
of their position.
Conclusions of the ASPIRE NREN Futures Panel
Just as there is an enormous spread in funding models of NRENs, there is also an enormous spread in maturity
models and in the services that the NRENs provide. Many of the NRENs may already be conforming to these
recommendations, in the whole or in part. It could be said that there are “Leader” and “Laggard” NRENs and many
of these points are aimed at the latter class of NREN.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
22 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
Some of the advanced NRENs have adopted modern, agile business processes and are led by enlightened
management teams and staff. These will lead the NREN into the future, ready to embrace the rapid changes that
occur in the telecommunications world.
The panel reached a number of general conclusions regarding the European NRENs
4.1 Governance of the NREN Community1. The NRENs should present a unified front when making bids to large funding organisations such as
the European Commission. Irrespective of how NRENs are organised or grouped, they should speak with
one voice to the major funding organisations and to major multinational service providers. The current
representation by DANTE, TERENA and the various governance committees presents a fragmented face to the
EC and the large suppliers.
2. NRENs must cooperate on service provision. Many of the services supplied to the NREN clients are
common across the community, and there is unnecessary duplication of effort in re-building common
services.
4.2 Governance of NRENs3. NRENs must act as partners to the community they serve and must ensure that the current and future
services can be provided through the NREN. Increasingly, the clients will be looking at their IT/networking
budgets and will not be slow about changing providers. NRENs need to adopt modern, “agile” processes
in their business strategies and processes. Just because services have been provided by the NRENs for the
last twenty years does not guarantee that they are sustainable into the future. With the increasing squeeze
on funding in the higher education sector, the client institutions will expect increasing value for their
expenditure and will require their suppliers to respond appropriately. NRENs that have restrictive statutes
and/or attitudes, will find it difficult to compete in an increasingly open market.
4. Existing NREN statutes may prevent an NREN from expanding its customer base beyond the R&E
community. Therefore, it may therefore be necessary to seek changes in the statutes and adopt different
pricing models and conditions appropriate to each sector.
5. The concept of brokered aggregation of services has been adopted by a number of NRENs and would
appear to be a financially viable solution that does not require major investments in infrastructure or
in software development. Aggregation can occur at either the physical or the logical level and multiple
aggregation contracts can be made by an NREN to allow for the diverse requirements of its clients. Many
commercial service providers will adopt a divide and conquer approach to the clients, but with the
appropriate levels of NREN-client cooperation, the extra purchasing power of the NREN can ensure that
”best value for money” deals can be made. In a similar manner, NRENs should be able to aggregate services
with other NRENs, where the law allows this. once again, the commercial suppliers can act as a single
supplier across a whole region. It should be possible for NRENs, or a single regional NREN, to act as a regional
aggregator.
6. NRENs need to examine their funding basis. Too much reliance on project-based funding can result in
instability by causing a rise in staff turnover, with its associated costs. The provision of basic services should
be on a self-sustaining basis, with funding for advanced developments coming from grant aid from central
or regional governments. In some cases, this is probably a longer-term objective, but some NRENs need to
examine and revise their processes to ensure that the NREN is operating on a sustainable funding basis.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
23 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
4.3 Collaboration between NRENs7. NRENs should consider forming links with other NRENs to share expertise. This would be especially
relevant where a mature NREN links up with a developing NREN in order to fast track their development of
services. This model has been used in some regional networks in the developing world.
8. While there is a great range of different NREN models in use across the region, many of the basic services
are common and will become increasingly commoditised. NRENs need to collaborate to optimise the
deployment of resources and to avoid inadvertent competition by the duplication of services. Similarly,
NRENs are at different levels of maturity in their development, and there should be closer collaboration to
ensure that the less-mature NRENs can benefit from the expertise and experience of the more developed
NRENs.
An example of such a regional network is NoRDunet, which is probably unique in Europe in that it is
governed by a treaty that formed the Nordic Council. However, there are many other “logical” groupings
across the region where de-facto cooperation exists that could be built upon to ensure better economies of
scale and reduction of duplication without interfering in national sovereignty issues.
9. NRENs should try to work together on service provision. Some of the work they do is very country-specific,
but some services span regions or even continents. There are obvious successful collaborations, such as
eduroam®, AAI, certificate services and the GÉANT network, where the concept of a regional NREN has
worked very successfully.
10. NRENs should not engage in the development of services readily available on the market. Development
of new services by the NRENs should be on a pilot basis and should be driven by the client community. It
should preferably be undertaken after consultation with other NRENs so as to avoid duplication of effort. This
may foster collaborative development, spreading the cost and risk or lead to a common service offered to
other NRENs.
There are many examples of services that the NREN community have pioneered that are unlikely to be
available on the market because they were developed to fulfil specific requirements of the R&E community.
However, once a specific service does become readily available on the commercial market, NRENs should
broker a migration of users to that service and withdraw the running of their own service.
4.4 NREN Services11. NRENs should not compete on price alone. If the market can provide the service cheaper, then the NREN
should move to act as an aggregator or broker of the commercial service.
4.5 NREN Markets12. NRENs should concentrate on the broad R&E markets in their region. This could include the full spectrum
of education, including public libraries and teaching hospitals as well as the broad range of schools. Where
questions arise as to the suitability of a particular sector, then a test of whether the new sector would be of a
benefit to the existing organisation should be applied.
13. NRENs should understand the needs of a broad and diverse community of users and then articulate
those requirements in a clear and coherent way to the market.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
24 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
4.6 NRENs in a National Environment14. NRENs should work with other public sector providers in their country and for interconnections between
adjacent countries. The clients on the NRENs are largely funded by the public sector and there is much to be
gained by the different components of the public sector working together. Similarly, there is much to be lost
by having multiple competing bids from one country for funding.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
25 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
5 ISSuES & RECoMMENDATIoNSIssue: The number of bodies and committees involved in discussing policy and management of the NREN/
European R&E networking sector is large. Although there is some cross membership and liaison, the consequence
is too many meetings, resulting in inefficiency and duplication.
Recommendation 1
The European R&E Networking Community (NRENs, DANTE, TERENA, and user stakeholders) need an efficient
strategic management body that is able to act as a single point of contact and is able to respond quickly and with
authority.
Recommendation 2
under the auspices of this body, a high-level task force should be created in which decision-makers work together
to define a single strategic vision for pan-European R&E Networking. Failure to achieve this may lead to the
fragmentation of services.
Issue: For many NRENs, the global economic crisis has intensified the issue of ensuring the sustainability of
funding. Governments and the institutions that fund them are seeking ways to cut their expenditure. In some
European countries, this is leading to the development of Public Service Networks (PSNs), intended to serve a
range of publicly-funded institutions.
NRENs dependence on periodic funding injections and money from short-term projects can be problematic for
NRENs, and can hinder them in running reliable, long-term, stable services.
Recommendation 3
NRENs should re-consider their funding models and move to more diversified and sustainable models. This
could embrace close collaboration with Public Service Networks but may require re-framing of some regulatory
positions: Connection Policies and Acceptable use Policies. A major goal should be to increase inter-institutional
collaboration, aggregation of demand, joint procurement, and sharing of services.
Issue: NRENs will find themselves operating in a harsher world than in the past. Commercial providers are
becoming capable of providing many of the basic services once provided by the community. It is vital for NRENs
to fully understand their operating environment and to adapt if necessary, if they are to survive - and indeed, to
thrive.
NRENs should review the makeup of senior management to ensure that there is suitable succession-planning
in place, and that new managers have suitable management skills and vision. To compete with the commercial
world, NRENs need to adopt commercial skills and policies.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
26 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
Recommendation 4
NRENs need to take a strategic approach to their business planning and service delivery, and develop a thorough
understanding of their own user base, including the needs of their international users and the external operating
environment.
Recommendation 5
A European user-requirements compendium should be developed by TERENA, so that the R&E network providers
have a strategic view of the demand side of the sector.
Recommendation 6
NRENS should not compete with the commercial providers, particularly on price. They should act as a trusted
broker that is an integral part of the community by providing expertise, aggregating demand, and adding value
through negotiation - including the integration of support for community AAI systems.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
27 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
3G 3rd Generation (mobile telecommunications technology)
3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project
AAI Authentication and Authorisation Infrastructure
AKA Authentication and Key Agreement
ALMA Atacama Millimetre Array
API Application Programming Interface
APN Access Point Network
ARC ALMA Regional Centre
ASDM ALMA Science Data Model
ASKAP Australian SKA Precursor
ASPIRE A Study on the Prospects of the Internet for Research and Education
ATLAS A particle physics experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN
AUP Acceptable use Policy
AWS Amazon Web Service
BYOD Bring your own Device
CA Certification Authority
CAD Computer Aided Design
CAI Community Anchor Institutions
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CEF Connecting Europe Facility
CEF/DSI Connecting Europe Facility/Digital Service Infrastructure
CERN European organisation for Nuclear Research
CERT Computer Emergency Response Teams
CIDOC-CRM International Committee for Documentation - Conceptual Reference Model
CP Connection Policy
CPU Central Processing unit
DANTE Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe
DARIAH Digital Research Architecture for the Arts and Humanities
DC Dublin Core
DCH Digital Cultural Heritage
DCH-RP Digital Cultural Heritage Roadmap for Preservation
DC-NET Digital Cultural heritage NETwork
6 GLoSSARy
back
to c
onte
nts
page
28 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
DEAS Delegate eduroam® Authentication System
DL Distance Learning
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
DRDB Distributed Replicated Block Device (software)
DSI Digital Service Infrastructure
DVTS Digital video Transport System
EAP Extensible Authentication Protocol
EC2 Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon)
ECDD&S ELIxIR Core Data Collections and Services
eduGAIN Education GÉANT Authorisation Infrastructure
eduroam Education Roaming
EEA European Economic Area
EGI European Grid Infrastructure
EIRO European Industrial Relations observatory
ELIXIR A sustainable infrastructure for biological information in Europe
ELSI Ethical, Legal and Social Implications
EMBL-EBI European Molecular Biology Laboratory - European Bioinformatics Institute
e-MERLIN vLBI National Radio Astronomy Facility
EMI European Middleware Initiative
ESD Event Summary Data
ESFRI BMS RI European Strategy Forum - Biological and Medical Sciences Research Infrastructure
EU European union
EUDAT European Data Infrastructure
FITS Flexible Image Transport System
FTP File Transfer Protocol
FTS File Transfer Service
GA General Assembly
GB Gigabyte
Gbps Gigabits per second
GÉANT Gigabit European Academic Network Technology
GN3 Multi-Gigabit European Academic Network
GPRS General Packet Radio Service
GPS Global Positioning System
GUI Graphical user Interface
HDF5 Hierarchical Data Format
HEP High Energy Physics
HG Human Genome Project
HPC High Performance Computing
HPC/Grid High Performance Computing and Grid
HTTPS HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure
IaaS Infrastructure as a Service
back
to c
onte
nts
page
29 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
ICFA Study Group on Data Preservation and Long Term Analysis in High Energy Physics
ICRAR a science archive facility in Australia
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
IEEE 802.1X e Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – standard for port-based Network Access Control
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force
IGTF International Grid Trust Federation
IN2P3 the National institute of nuclear and particle physics in France
IOS iPhone operating System
IP Internet Protocol
IP Intellectual Property
IPR Intellectual Property Right
IRCAM Institut de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique
IRG e-Infrastructure Reflection Group
IRU Indefeasible Right of use
ISO International organization for Standardization
ISP Internet Service Provider
IVOA International virtual observatory Alliance
JIVE Joint Institute for vLBI in Europe
JSPG Joint Security Policy Group
K-12 schools primary and secondary schools
km kilometre
KVM Kernel-based virtual Machine
LAN Local Area Network
LHC Large Hadron Collider
LHCOPN LHC optical Private Network
LIPA Local IP Access
LMS Learning Management Systems
LOFAR Low Frequency Array
LOLA Low LAtency audio visual streaming system
LTE Long Term Evolution - a standard for wireless communication of high-speed data
MAN Metropolitan Area Network
mID unique Identification of person per device
MiFi Mobile Broadband Wi-Fi
MMS Multimedia Messaging Service
ms millisecond
NDGF Nordic DataGrid Facility
NFC Near Field Communication
NGAS New Generation Archive System
NGI National Grid Initiatives
NIST (uS) National Institute of Standards and Technology
NOC Network operations Centre
back
to c
onte
nts
page
30 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
NRC National Research Council
NREN National Research and Education Network (can also refer to the operator of such a network)
NREN-PC National Research and Education Network Programme Committee
NSF National Science Foundation
OAI-MPH open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting
OECD organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OMII open Middleware Infrastructure Institute
OPEX operating Expenditure
OSF operations Support Facility
OSG open Science Grid
OTP one Time Passwords
OWL ontology Web Language
PaaS Platform as a Service
PII Personally Identifiable Information
PKI Public Key Infrastructure
PMH Protocol for Metadata Harvesting
PoP Point of Presence
R&E Research and Education
RADIUS Remote Authentication Dial In user Service
RAM Random Access Memory
RDF Resource Description Framework
REST Representational State Transfer
RF/IF Radio Frequency/Intermediate Frequency
RNA Ribonucleic acid
RTT Round-Trip Time
S3 Simple Storage Services (Amazon)
SaaS Software-as-a-Service
SAML Security Assertion Markup Language
SIM Subscriber Identification Module
SIP Session Initiation Protocol
SIPTO Selective IP Traffic offload
SKA Square Kilometre Array
SLA Service Level Agreement
SLAC Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
SMIL Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language
SRM Storage Resource Manager
SSID Service Set Identifier
SVG Scalable vector Graphics
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, opportunities, Threats
TERENA Trans European Research and Education Networking Association
TLS Transport Layer Security
back
to c
onte
nts
page
31 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
U.S. UCAN united States unified Community Anchor Network
UMF university Modernisation Fund (Greece)
UMTS universal Mobile Telecommunications System
VLAN virtual Local Area Network
VLBI very Long Baseline Interferometry
VLE virtual Learning Environment
VM virtual Machine
VO virtual observatory
VoIP voice over Internet Protocol
VOMS vo Membership Services
WAN Wide Area Network
WAP Wireless Application Protocol
WebDAV Web Distributed Authoring and versioning
Wi-Fi Wireless exchange of data
WiMAX Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
WLAN Wireless Local Area Network
WLCG Worldwide LHC Computing Grid
XML Extensible Markup Language
back
to c
onte
nts
page
David Foster, CERN, Switzerland
DAvID FoSTER has both a BSc and PHD from Durham university, Department of
Applied Physics and Electronics, and an MBA from Durham university Business
School. He has spent more than thirty years at CERN and has held many technical
and managerial roles. He currently chairs a number of international committees
on networking and supercomputing as well as representing CERN on a number of
projects with the European Commission. David is currently Deputy IT Department
Head at CERN and has particular responsibility for international network strategy
as well as infrastructure strategy in the areas of information management. He is
a Fellow of the Institute of Physics and a member of the Chartered Management
Institute and the Association of MBAs.
Michael Nowlan, Ireland
ASPIRE NRENs Study Leader
MICHAEL NoWLAN is a consultant in the higher education networking and IT
sector, especially in a European context. until 2008, he was Director of Information
Systems Services at Trinity College Dublin and was involved with HEAnet, the
Irish NREN, since its foundation in 1983.
Victor Reijs, HEANET, Ireland
After studying at the university of Twente in the Netherlands, vICToR REIJS
worked for KPN Telecom Research and SuRFnet. He was involved in CLNS/TuBA
(one of the earlier alternatives for IPv6). Experience was gained with x.25 and ATM
in a national and international environment. His last activity at SuRFnet was the
tender for SuRFnet5 (a step towards optical networking). Emigrating to Ireland,
he manages the network development team of HEAnet and is actively involved
in international activities, such as GN3 and Mantychore (IP Networks as a Service),
as well as (optical) networking, point-to-point links, virtualisation and monitoring.
32 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
7 CoNTRIBuToRS
back
to c
onte
nts
page
Klaas Wierenga, CISCo, The Netherlands
KLAAS WIERENGA works in the Research and Advanced Development group
of Cisco Systems. He has worked in the Dutch NREN SuRFnet for over ten years
and currently serves as chair of the TERENA Task Force on Mobility and Network
Middleware. He co-authored the Cisco Press publication “Building the Mobile
Internet” and is the inventor of eduroam. He is particularly interested in future
development of the Internet in the areas of identity and mobility.
Asher Rotkop, IuCC, Israel
ASHER RoTKoP is Director Genral of IuCC, CIo of Tel Aviv university, and Deputy
Director General for Higher Education. He is an IT expert, with wide experience
in the IT infrastructures and Information Systems of universities. He is focused
on leading IuCC (the NREN of Israel) towards fulfilling the universities’ needs by
expanding its range of activities to include added-value services such as, cloud and
DRP, data base agreements with libraries, and inter-university IT services.
Christoph Witzig, SWITCH, Switzerland
CHRISToPH WITzIG is the head of the Central ICT Providers at SWITCH, the NREN
of Switzerland. He holds a degree in High Energy Physics from ETH zurich and
worked for several years at Brookhaven National Laboratory in upton, Ny. He held
various positions in the commercial sector before joining SWITCH in spring 2005.
33 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
back
to c
onte
nts
page
34 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference of ASPIRE NREN Futures Panel
The future roles of NRENS 25
The NRENS and the R&E networking community exist in a rapidly evolving environment, characterised by
technological innovation, increasing numbers of service suppliers and ever demanding users.
As a result of the current global economic crisis, some NRENs have to cope with severe financial constraints.
Institutional funding is coming under closer scrutiny, and the management of institutions endeavours to extract
maximum value from the available resources. NRENs should be aware that services that they have traditionally
provided for users may now be available from commercial cloud services providers. NRENs should seek to
maximise their value to the community by brokering deals with such providers.
Meanwhile, users expect that the services available to them will include tools for real-time interaction,
collaborative working, media sharing, and social interaction, as well as traditional document-creation and email.
There is increasing globalisation in all sectors of human activity, including R&E. Many of the achievements being
made on the global scale are too large or complex to be realised through national initiatives. Therefore, it is
vital that excellent global communication and network services are available to support the growing number
of distributed and collaborative virtual organisations. The NRENs are well placed to satisfy these requirements,
acting in collaboration with industry. However, the current model of NRENs providing a full range of services by
themselves to their connected institutions is facing a disruptive challenge.
While the European NRENs have a good history of collaborating at a pan-European level through organisations
like TERENA, this collaboration should be intensified and extended globally if the community is to stay relevant to
serving the future needs of R&E.
NRENs, and possibly other organisations in the R&E networking community, should capitalise on the cohesiveness
of the community and negotiate jointly with suppliers to obtain higher levels of service and cost savings.
Several European NRENs already connect organisations involved in lifelong-learning, e-Health, e- Culture, and
e-Government, while in other countries, there are other organisations catering for those sectors. The European
Commission wishes to encourage more intensive cooperation between the R&E networking community and the
commercial sector, as part of the European union vision for a digital Europe. The NRENs can play an essential role
in developing and improving networking and related services for those sectors, capitalising on the strengths of
the European R&E networking community in areas such as security, mobility, and middleware.
This sub-study will include exploration and discussion of the following issues:
› a brief review of the development of the NRENs using the TERENA Compendia and other data;
› a summary of future strategies for NRENs;
› potential concentric and horizontal development areas;
› a market study on the availability of commodity services and their uptake;
› areas for collaborative action, including cost-benefit analysis;
› recommendations for the future roles of NRENs.
25 http://www.terena.org/activities/aspire/docs/topics.pdf
back
to c
onte
nts
page
35 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
Appendix 2: Detailed Results of NREN SWOT Analysis
SWOT for “NREN 2021”The SWoT was created as a result of the brainstorming during the vC meeting on Monday 5 December and a
further vC meeting on Tuesday 13 December 2011.
Please note that that there is a wide range of different types and maturities of NREN in the TERENA community,
and the SWoT analysis makes a range of broad generalisations on the concept of NRENs. There will be quite a
number of NRENs that will fall outside these classifications, but the group considers that the points should be
made and brought to the attention of the community so that action can be undertaken, where required.
The items below, in bold, are the main issues; the following text expands or explains the individual item.
STRENGTHSNRENs hold a monopoly in their country. This is generally the case, but not always. A NREN may or may not
be a monopoly supplier to the customer base. This monopoly can be considered as a strength, a weakness, an
opportunity and/or a threat.
NRENs have highly skilled staff, focussed on NREN services.
NRENs have good staff turnover to facilitate change in services. This can be considered as a threat and
a weakness, but if there is not an adequate level of staff turnover, then the opportunity for change may be
decreased.
NRENs are well-respected in the national and wider communities.
NRENS provide good services.
NRENs manage the ‘club’ of academic users. The NREN is the natural hub for collaboration among the academic
users. Joint innovations tend to be centred on collaboration in the sector.
NRENs are trusted as being commercially independent. In general, the NREN will provide its customers with
an unbiased view of commercial offerings; this is a unique perspective, because the NREN does not usually have a
commercial objective in recommending a particular service.
NRENs tend to have established relations with their customers at all levels. These include technical,
administrative, and strategic relationships. It would be very unlikely that these sorts of relationships would arise in
a purely commercial, competitive environment.
NRENs generally have a close relationship with the national funding agencies. While there is a whole
spectrum of funding models for NRENs, the NREN tends to be close to the funding agencies in their respective
countries as well as at the European level.
There is a good history of successful international collaboration between NRENs.
NRENs can facilitate services that are at a pre-competitive stage, or that are directly focussed on their
customer base. Innovation in the academic sphere is not always driven by commercial factors. Cooperation may
be more important in the sector.
WEAKNESSESNRENs hold a monopoly in their country. This is generally the case, but not always. The NREN may or may not
be a monopoly supplier to the customer base. This monopoly can be considered as a strength, a weakness, an
opportunity and/or a threat.
Staff turnover amongst highly skilled NREN staff may threaten the continuity of services.
Some NRENs appear to lack strategic vision. of course, there are many NRENs that are acting very strategically;
the others need to take cognisance of this and develop their strategic skills.
NRENs are not market leaders, just market followers. There is a tendency to reinvent services that the market
already supplies and to deliver them late, sometimes after their customers have committed to commercial
offerings.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
36 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
NRENs can be considered as complacent in their ‘near monopoly’ positions. The customer base will be very
quick to see opportunities for cost saving, and may shift suppliers to commercial organisations. In the longer
term, the monopoly that the NRENs have today will be undermined and possibly eliminated.
NRENs can be perceived as being remote from their users. Customer relationship procedures need to be
put into place to manage these relationships. Relationships between the customers and the NRENs are largely
unmanaged and are not always supported by service level agreements.
NREN time-to-delivery of services too slow compared with the agile commercial suppliers.
NRENs are too focussed on providing pipes and plumbing (such as, lines and lambdas). They need to
broaden their scope from infrastructure to services.
NRENs are slow to adopt best practice business methods. This includes software development, management
of service delivery and customer relations.
NRENs have a natural affinity with the IT service departments and may be ignoring the big research users.
NRENs could quickly disappear if government funding stops and they are required to become competitive.
NRENs may have poor economies of scale, due to their limited customer base and their concentration on
traditional services.
Monopolies are inherently unstable. This is valid, unless the monopoly is solidly protected by national laws or
by high obstacles to entering the market.
NRENs may be too dependent on central funding. This is especially problematical with project-based funding,
where staff is only employed on a project basis, rather than on the NRENs need for real skills.
NRENs do not (all) offer Service Level Agreements. This is important for some types of customers.
oPPoRTuNITIESNRENs hold a monopoly in their country. This is generally the case, but not always. The NREN may or may not
be a monopoly supplier to the customer base. This monopoly can be considered as a strength, a weakness, an
opportunity and/or a threat.
NRENs tend to have established relations with their customers at all levels. These include technical,
administrative, and strategic relationships. It would be very unlikely that these sorts of relationships would arise in
a purely commercial competitive environment.
Much NREN management is “greying” and reaching retirement age. There is an opportunity here to replace
these by younger enthusiastic staff, well versed in business practices and lacking the prejudices of the early NREN
days.
There is new funding available from the EC for ICT networking. This includes the Connecting Europe Facility
(CEF).
NRENs are positioned to provide aggregation of services and bulk purchases.
NRENs can provide leadership to their customers. Customer education is an important role for the NRENs.
NRENs can broaden their customer base to include schools and government departments.
NRENs can share facilities. This sharing can include such areas as data centres and bulk purchases.
There is an opportunity to offload historic services to commercial companies. NRENs can then concentrate
on what the market does not do (yet).
There is an opportunity to consolidate NRENs into one or more European REN. This could be in the form of
an Internet-Eu.
Universities can outsource facility management to the NRENS. There is no innovation at the university level.
Use existing NRENs to create a super-NREN in Europe. It is easier to expand current organisations (NRENS) to
new activities than to create new ones - the NRENS have resources for, at least, the first steps needed.
Aggregation of services and the “buying power” of the “EU NRENS” must bring significant cost effective
value.
NRENs should transfer from infrastructure to “infra-services”.
NRENS can build an academic research Hybrid Cloud based on existing commodity services.
NRENs can provide disaster recovery services for NREN’s members.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
37 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
NRENs can offer services to multination organisations on a pan-European basis rather than dealing
nationally with each NREN.
NRENs can profit from the tendency of universities to outsource services to external providers. NRENs are
perceived as a trusted service provider and can act as a broker for the universities for commercial services.
NRENs should target services where price is not the deciding factor. They should not compete on price alone.
Central funding could be used for innovation. NREN customers generally are price conscious, and are not
usually inclined to fund innovation.
THREATSNRENs hold a monopoly in their country. This is generally the case, but not always. The NREN may or may not
be a monopoly supplier to the customer base. This monopoly can be considered as a strength, a weakness, an
opportunity and/or a threat.
Staff turnover amongst highly skilled NREN staff may threaten the continuity of services.
NRENS face a possible split of their end users. They could lose the “A”s and the “B”s and only be left with the “C”s.
The creation of a Super NREN in Europe may threaten the very existence of national NRENs. This may be a
more suitable model compared with merging existing NRENs into one big REN.
Customers will move to more agile service providers.
Their monopoly may be removed.
The commercial companies may ‘cherry pick’ individual services.
The commercial market is very agile at developing and implementing new services.
There is a threat of the total elimination of concept of an NREN.
Lambda networking is a success, with no need for central orchestration. This could be a threat to a potential
European REN.
Price could become the only differentiator. The race to the bottom cannot be won.
NRENs face the potential loss of centralised government funding.
Items held overNRENs have an enthusiastic and motivated workforce.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
38 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
Appendix 3: Summary Results of the NREN Managers’ Questionnaire
› Three-quarters of the NRENs have a strategy that is usually updated in cycles of three-to-five years. Few of
these strategies are publicly available or in English.
Western European NRENs tend to be more likely to have a strategy than Eastern European or Emerging
Europe NRENs.
› NREN Management usually takes the lead on defining strategy. However, in a few cases, it is dependent upon
a government ministry for direction.
No geographical differentiation was observed.
› one-third of the NRENs would consider offering their existing services to new users – mostly in the public
sector and, typically, related to universities (and including, hospitals, museums, and libraries). only three
NRENs mentioned public schools.
The intention to offer existing services to new users is more pronounced in Western European NRENs,
than in Eastern European and Emerging Europe NRENs.
› Most NRENs mention the lack of resources (funds, staff) as their main inhibitors. others include the lack
of NREN flexibility, insufficient vision, politics, market forces, and security/privacy issues, as well as no new
services being offered in addition to connectivity.
No geographical differentiation was observed.
› Connectivity is clearly the most common existing key service, followed by federated identity management,
video Conferencing, HPC/Grid, and security/PKI.
No geographical differentiation was observed
› Cloud services are identified as a new service as well as a key service in the next three to five years followed,
down the list, by storage, HPC/Grid, and federated identity management. only half the NRENs indicated
connectivity as a future key service but it is unclear whether this is an omission in the questionnaire or a
strategic decision.
› There seems to be a general hesitancy to abandon services, as only ten NRENs indicated which services they
are going to withdraw. These services include dial-up, spam filtering, email, and video Conferencing.
› It is interesting to note that very few NRENs mention collaboration and community management as a current
or future service.
video Conferencing seems to have a somewhat higher awareness in Eastern Europe /Emerging Europe
than in Western Europe.
Email is offered predominantly by the Emerging Europe NRENs.
› Nearly all NRENs use a range of approaches for service provision, from in-house builds to subcontracting and
arranging commercial contracts for customers. Across the three categories defined, there is an even spread of
usage, with each one used by about 75% of the NRENs responding.
Emerging Europe NRENs tend to favour “undertake complete development and maintenance” or “build
in-house”.
› About twenty per cent of the NRENs do not perform any segmentation of the market they serve, with the rest
evenly split between types of institution, types of user or category of need of the user.
No geographical differentiation was observed.
back
to c
onte
nts
page
39 | ASPIRE NRENS STUDY
› Seventy-five per cent of the NRENs indicated that they do, in fact, target specific services to different market
segments.
Most Western Europe NRENs target their services to different market segments, much more so than
NRENs in Eastern Europe and Emerging Europe.
› In terms of target market in the next five years, 50% of the NRENs did not expect to be targeting any new
markets. Twenty per cent of NRENs thought they would move into the public sector and thirty per cent would
grow their market-base in educational establishments.
Emerging Europe NRENs differ, because two out of three of them will not target any new markets in the
next five years. Predominantly Western European NRENs seem to see the need to do so.
› Regarding the effects of Horizon-2020 on the NRENs, the results were evenly split between no effect, positive
effect, and uncertain. There might be some grouping with the more independently-financed NRENs, grouping
these into the no effect category. Those that are more dependent on Eu funds view this as a positive effect.
No geographical differentiation can be observed, which is somewhat surprising as the financial
situations of NRENs are most likely to differ between the geographical regions.
The preferred method of 33% of NRENs for collecting information about user requirements is the use of
structured meetings. About twenty five percent of NRENs use surveys and some use other ad-hoc means
of data capture. A few NRENs have implemented a system of advisory bodies as a way of collecting
requirements. Structured meetings are the preferred method in Western Europe, but less so in the other
regions.
› The possible issues facing NRENs regarding political, economic, sociological, and technical forces produced a
broad range of replies. Again, NRENs were evenly spread across political, economic, and technical issues. The
pace of technological change and government decision-making were highlighted along with funding levels
as the main issues.
Economic issues were more often mentioned by Emerging Europe NRENs.
› It was clear that most NRENs (50%) consider the traditional telecommunications operators as competitors
(and some twenty-five per cent perceive them as partners). Around 33% consider universities and NRENs
as partners, and a few consider these as competitors. It is perhaps surprising that only fourteen per cent of
NRENs identified the user communities as partners; the same amount identified them as competitors!
Western Europe NRENs consider Telco’s mostly as competitors: Eastern Europe and Emerging Europe less so.
Western Europe NRENs consider universities and other NRENs mostly as partners: Emerging Europe less so.
› only 50% of the NRENs would agree to have their users approached with a survey. Perhaps they wanted to
spare their users from survey-fatigue and perhaps this is a statement on their view of the importance of this
process. Seventy-five per cent agreed to be on the ASPIRE mailing list.
No geographical differentiation was observed.
back
to c
onte
nts
page