TF-MSP Meeting
Alcala de Henaers, Spain
6/7 May 2013
John DYER
dyer@terena.org
www.terena.org
CEF or BB4PA
and the
R&E Networking Community
The Reason for this Discussion
› The EC want CEF – BB4PA to happen
› The EC are rightly proud of GÉANT
› Opportunity or not for R&E to consider?
› Does R&E networking community want:
› to be intimately involved
›and if so in what way?
› to distance itself from CEF/BB4PA
›and why?
› to take some other stance
Slide: 2
Background of CEF / BB4PA
› President: José Manuel Durão Barroso
› 19 Oct 2011: Press Conference, Brussels
› Kostas Glinos: Head of Unit DG-CNECT
› 26 Oct 2011: Presentation at TERENA GA
› Links
› www.terena.org/tf-msp/documents/ecpublic/
› Running period for CEF: 2014 – 2020
› In addition to Horizon 2020 funding envelope
Slide 3
The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)
Initial Ideas (2011)
› Transport
31.7 billion Euros
(inc. cohesion fund 10 billion)
› Energy
9.1 billion Euros
› Key Digital Infrastructure
9.2 billion Euros
› TOTAL: 50 billion Euros
Slide 4
The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)
after Council Decisions 8 February
EUCO37/13
› Transport
31.7 billion
23.174 billion
› Energy
9.1 billion
5.126 billion
› Key Digital Infrastructure
9.2 billion
1.0 billion
› TOTAL:
Slide 5
50 billion
29.299 billion
Key Digital Service Infrastructures
› Total Investment in key DSI
~ 9 billion
1 billion
› Broadband
7 billion
› encourage local companies to improve connectivity for
European citizens: 30 Mbps minimum
at least 50% at 100 Mbps
ZERO
Slide 6
What is currently known about DSI
funding
› information on the use of this 1billion € is
speculation
› Priorities will be decided in June 2013
› The 1 billion DIS initiative may cover:
› the backbone for Public Administration
› other projects ranging from e-government to
e-health, europeana etc
› synergies with Horizon 2020 (e.g. GÉANT) is
certainly encouraged
Slide 7
Why a Backbone for Public
Administration?
›
›
›
›
›
Global Economic Crisis
Public Admin costs need to be reduced
Duplication of Infrastructure – Wasteful
GÉANT is seen as an excellent model
US Unified Community Anchor Network (UCAN)
Justice
HEALTH
CULTURE
Slide 8
Three Possible Scenarios
amongst others . . . ?
Slide 9
Scenario 1
Full Integration with NRENs
BB4PA ≡ GÉANT
› CEF exchange is integrated
into the NREN backbone
› Public Administration sites
are connected to NREN
backbone
› The European Backbone for
Public Administrations
connects all NRENs
Slide 10
Scenario 2
Parallel BB4PA/GÉANT
BB4PA
› CEF Exchanges connect
Public Administration
Networks
› GÉANT connects NRENs as
now
› Parallel operation does not
bring many benefits and
synergies
GÉANT
Slide 11
Scenario 3
CEF Open Exchanges
BB4PA
› CEF Open Exchanges in
each country
› NRENs connect to BB4PA
through the CEF Open
Exchanges
Slide 12
Scenario 3 - variations
GÉANT ?
› Logical Segmentation
› Optical Segmentation
› Physical Segmentation
Slide 13
Strategy for CEF/BB4PA
› Study of the readiness of Member States for a
common pan-European network infrastructure for
public services
› Contract to: Capgemini/Deloitte consortium
(runs Dec 2012 – Dec 2013)
› Establish a Knowledge Base
› Analysis of Current Situation
› Outreach and Dissemination
› Scenarios and Recommendations
Slide 14
Timeline
Scenarios
Contract
Awarded
Inception
Meeting
EC
Dec 12
Jan 13
TF-MSP
NRENPC
Start: end
June
Create
Knowledg
e
Base
Interim
Report
Analysis
Apr/May 13
TERENA
GA
CEF
DISCUSS
Engagement
Discussion
platform
OPEN
TNC
BoF
3 June
18:00-19:30
Study
Conference
TERENA
GA
6/7 June
Final
Report
Slide: 15
30/31 Oct
Brussels
t.b.c
Dec 2013
Progress
as of 23 April 2013

Interviews carried out:
−
8 Reference Networks:
•
•
−
4 Network Service Providers:
•
›
Carried out (4): STORK (eID), epSOS (eHealth), CCN (DG TAXUD) and CISE (DG MARE)
4 Public Administrations:
•

Awaiting confirmation (4): United Kingdom (Government Secure Intranet), Belgium (Federal Service Bus), Estonia
(EEBone / X-Road Middleware), Greece (National Public Administration Network (SYZEFXIS)) and Germany (back-up)
(Federal Administration Information Network (IVBV))
4 Digital Service Infrastructures:
•
›
Carried out (6): Belgium (Public Services Network &NREN), United Kingdom (NREN), Denmark (NREN & part of
NorduNet), Hungary (Public Services Network & NREN), Croatia (Public Services Network & NREN) and Internet2
(Third country – USA)
Awaiting confirmation (2): Dante (Reference Network) and Germany (NREN)
Awaiting confirmation (4): United Kingdom (eBusiness), Belgium (Security - Police), Estonia (eBusiness and eJustice),
Hungary (eHealth) and Germany (back-up) (eProcurement)
All surveys have been sent out to a total of over 180 respondents.
Preliminary Insights NRENs
as of 23 April 2013

Two groups with opposite opinions on connecting the Public Administrations to the NRENs:
›
In Belgium, Croatia, and Denmark NRENs are enthusiastic about connecting Public Administrations.
›
Other NRENs, like Janet in the UK and Internet2 in the USA, fear losing focus on the primary goal of the network, and a
too politicized environment.

There is a difference between Western and Eastern Europe. NRENs from the eastern countries fear
a further ‘Digital Divide’.

NRENs are highly dependent on funding from the government or other sources.

Countries, except Denmark, do not face problems when new institutions ask to be connected to
the network.

Up-scaling bandwidth is no problem except when reaching physical boundaries. Large investments
are needed.

Only when the NRENs provide services themselves, they do guarantee the safety and security of
the data related to these services. Otherwise the users are responsible for their own data.

Most of the NRENs state that the requirements of the PAs are low. Belnet is an exception.

Most of the NRENs are increasingly focusing on providing cloud services to their clients
Preliminary Insights DSIs
(CISE, CCN, epSOS, STORK)
as of 23 April 2013

all see advantages in using a backbone network, mainly for:
›

Availability & Security
They however have some general concerns:
›
How will the network be governed?
›
Is the data on the network secure, since it will also be used by universities and public administrations?
›
Can the availability be assured when all the public administrations are also connected?

There is some cooperation between the different DSIs or there is interest in it.
E.g. one of the user communities of CISE is taxation, so they will need to cooperate with CCN.
STORK can also be used by the other DSIs.

Since they are mostly pilot projects, their use is currently quite low. However, they all see it
increasing to a full infrastructure in the future.

The funding of the DSIs is mainly done in two ways. The Commission funds the creation of the cross
border services (Core Service Platforms), while the Member States are responsible for the internal
infrastructure to be able to use them (Generic Services).

Cloud adoption is quite low in the DSIs that were interviewed.
Community Influence
› 32 stakeholders will be interviewed
› 12 RN; 5 PA; 4 NSP; 8 DSI
› 180 questionnaire invite sent out
› all EU NRENs (2) plus DANTE; TERENA . . . .
› DSI; NSP; PA; NCP & CIO . . . .
› Open TNC BoF:
› Contractors will present the work so far
› Discussion and Feedback
› Can we build consensus?
REGISTER
NOW
Community Information Sources
› Documentation
› TF-MSP Document Store:
› www.terena.org/tf-msp/documents/ecpublic
› Private Discussion Wiki for Community
› https://confluence.terena.org
› username / password from John/Magda
› Open email distribution list
› cef-discuss@terena.org
› Self subscribe at:
› www.terena.org/mailinglists.php
› Open TNC-BoF Monday 3 June 18:00 – 19:30
› https://tnc2013.terena.org/core/event/9
REGISTER
NOW