Mike, Joe, Brandon:
I've included information below following up on the MFS network installation
issue in response to EOL concerns that were expressed on the recent NETS survey.
In the first section, you'll see the time line as we understood it along with
some details about the process. It is important to note that this project
basically required a full rebuild of the Marshall Field Site LAN media
distribution and support infrastructures, plus the acquisition and
installation of new WAN infrastructure and equipment.
The final section outlines our proposal for what we might do in the future to
improve NETS service in support of field or other special projects. We will be
presenting this to NCAB at the next meeting.
Please let me know if you have questions or need further information.
Jeff Custard | firstname.lastname@example.org
| 303-497-1252 |
These are the primary contacts NETS had for the new WWAN work at MFS:
and we assumed Dennis was communicating with all or some of these folks for
updates on the networking for this particular project:
As for dates, here's a rough outline from an email review:
26-Jan-2006: initial email with questions about higher MFS bandwidth needs
from Mike Daniels.
01-Feb-2006: NCAB email sent requesting input on MFS networking needs
07-Feb-2006: NETS network engineering review of this topic before NCAB
meeting on 15-Feb-2006
15-Feb-2006: NCAB meeting where MFS networking comes up; notes from that meeting:
* EOL noted 22-May-2006 S-Pol testing begins
* REFRACT--2 months estimated around June and July 2006
* discussed running fiber from main building to S-Pol site and longer term
needs for WAN
* indicated NETS would look at all available options from fiber to copper
circuits and WWAN options.
Rest of February was spent looking into those options by NETS. Late
Feb--Qwest was indicating, if they could do anything, it would be a 30-45 day
01-Mar-2006: Qwest say no on QMOE or DS3 options [T1 bonding options
only--high cost and not much more speed so NETS declined]. NETS indicates we
will investigate WWAN options. A licensed wireless solution will be required
to provide higher bandwidth that will not interfere with existing point to
point links wireless links.
02-Mar-2006: JC receives email that Dennis Flanigan and Brandon Slaten are
gathering info from other MFS field site users for usage estimates and
requirements for this summer and beyond--they were to get back to JC on what
they think acceptable minimums might be.
16-Mar-2006: Marla sends email [to Brandon Slaten, Terry Eads, Mike Daniels,
Dennis Flanigan, Joe Vinson, Tres Hofmeister, Scott Landolt, Christ Burghart,
Brigitte Baeuerle, and James Smith] indicating NETS will go with wireless and
that we are looking into licensed options. NETS further indicated they would
do their best to shoot for a May 2006 install/test/use date, but many
contingencies assumed (in particular the license approval process, equipment
and staff availability, etc.).
March: NETS coordination with George Stringe on wireless frequencies to use
as well as ongoing comparison of different licensed WWAN options from
22-Mar-2006: email from Joe Vinson and Dennis Flanigan indicating June 6
24-Mar-2006: NETS comparing licensed WWAN options.
06-April-2006: PR submitted for new WWAN gear and George Stringe submits the
license request to NSF.
there had been, say a *one*
week delay while waiting for our license
application (which we thought might be reasonable or at most two weeks), we
could have had our DragonWave order finalized probably around 17-Apr-2006,
with a subsequent completion date roughly one month later.
A note on how the licensing process works:
1) NETS contacts George Stringe, who is the spectrum coordinator for UCAR
[frequencies agreed on and application prepared].
2) George submits request to NSF
3) NSF works through NTIA
4) NTIA gets FCC approval
5) that sequence is reversed for all questions and notifications.
As it was, we did not get final approval (so could not finalize our order)
until June 2006. During that time, there was constant and ongoing
communication about the status of our license approval (e.g., NETS to George
Stringe and George to various DC agency folks).
09-May-2006: George follows up with others at NSF -- no word on our application.
11-May-2006: JC email update sent to Dennis Flanigan on WWAN and WLAN work.
22-May-2006: still waiting for NSF approval; George inquires again. JC sends
update to Joe Vinson.
31-May-2006: Dennis Flanigan indicated in an email that he thought the lower
bandwidth runs could work on existing link if necessary.
02-Jun-2006: JC sent update to Joe Vinson on NSF bureaucratic delay for
license approval. Joe indicates he was in contact with Dennis Flanigan [JC
received email confirmation of this from Joe on 05-Jun-2006]
14-Jun-2006: NSF (NTIA/FCC) approval of our license request; DragonWave order
finalized. JC: email sent to Joe VanAndel and Joe Vinson on latest.
23-Jun-2006: DragonWave equipment install.
27-Jun-2006: update sent to Joe Vinson on progress and time estimates. Joe
indicates JC just needs to keep he and Dennis Flanigan posted.
30-Jun-2006: update sent to Joe and Dennis; Dennis replies that 13-Jul-2006
would work for a test/cutover date.
13-Jul-2006: Cut to new DragonWave WWAN link.
So again, without the licensing approval delays, a "best case" estimate would
have put the new licensed WWAN solution in around mid-May 2006 instead of the
mid-July 2006 date that actually resulted.
NETS proposal for future "Field Site Support" that NETS might provide (at MFS
or elsewhere). This concept will be brought to NCAB for review and approval.
This information will be documented by the primary NETS person responsible for
coordinating the support.
It should include things like:
* dates: all pertinent--start, end, milestones, etc.
* deadlines: absolute and flexible--call these out and agree on them in advance.
* agree in advance whether meetings are needed or email/phone coordination
will suffice throughout the project.
* contacts: primary and secondary (for both NETS and group being supported)
--and agreement on communication flows--who talks to who and relays info as
applicable (to clarify assumptions).
* any special needs/setup requirements should be noted in advance (along with
a procedure for communicating any changes to these that may come up during the
course of the project).
* different/special data needs? (e.g., wireless gear, router support, etc.).
* agreed upon calendar dates throughout the project set in advance for
two-way contact/follow-up to confirm how things are going.
* after project completion: follow up mechanisms (e.g., survey? calls? email?)?