OHIP RFP Questions and Answers                               Next 25 Questions and Answers


State of Ohio RFP Questions

 

Regarding the “peering relationship” on Page 19; the RFP states that the “BON will accept an IP peering connection as an alternative to providing (direct) access to the BON (sp) backbone.  Explicitly, a peering connection will allow traffic to pass to all BON directly connected customers and all of the service provider’s directly connected customers. The required protocol for exchange of routing information is Boarder Gateway Protocol (“BGP”) version 4.  The service provider must use globally routable IP addresses as well as a globally routable Autonomous System Number.”

  

  1. a.  What are the reasons behind the statement “…service provider must use globally routable IP addresses as well as a globally routable Autonomous System Number.”?

b.  Is this necessary simply to ensure unique address space and AS numbers within the BON, or are there specific routing policy reasons?

Yes to both.  Because we are a public network of networks we do not allow any non-publicly routable IP blocks on the backbone.  Globally routed IP addresses and ASNs are necessary to ensure proper traffic flows.  Customers of the Service Provider would use the peering connection when accessing hosts within the State’s IP address space.  State network Customers would use the peering connection to access hosts within the Provider’s address space or addresses whose shortest path traverses the Provider’s ASN.

 

  1. Is the BON an entirely public addressed, globally routable “public” network?

No, not entirely.  We support the use of RFC 1918 addresses within the network.  RFC 1918 addresses are used for local communication only.  Some customers NAT these addresses into globally routable IP address space to support communication to the Global Internet.  Only globally routable IP address space would be included in the BGP processes running between the Service Provider and the BON.  Only routes advertised via ASN 19902 would be passed to the Service Provider.

  1. Are all the BON networks visible in the public Internet space? Or is the BON truly a private network using what amounts to “globally routable” but largely Internet invisible public address space?

Yes.  All BON networks which will need to access the provider’s network are in the public Internet Space and are globally routable via a globally routable ASN (19902).

 

  1. Is any RFC 1918 address space used on the BON?

Yes, but this space will not be advertised to the service provider in any form.

A potential provider network design for direct connection to the BON backbone would be to use a providers MPLS network with several strategically placed high bandwidth access circuits into the BON POP’s for termination on a BON provided CE router (which in this case might be the BON Aggregation Layer supporting multiple telecom provider/service provider IP interfaces, the aggregation equipment appearing to be Cisco 7609s). The BON CE router and the BON backbone could exchange routes at the BON POP’s (an ordinary IP connection with route exchange via BGPv4, and routed networks using address space available within the BON).  State agency subscribers could then purchase access into the providers MPLS network via various access methods – take advantage of the quality of service features of the providers MPLS network – and have access to the BON network via the BON CE routers.  Also – State of Ohio subscribers to the providers MPLS network could be provided access to the public Internet via a provider internet gateway accessible through the providers MPLS network or via default route from the BON pointing to BON Internet gateways.  

  1. Would this be an acceptable design to the State of Ohio for direct connection to the BON backbone?

Yes.  However, to be clear, we would not do MPLS label exchanges with the provider nor can the provider be the exclusive solution available to the end client, that is, the client can choose to use the BON Internet service.  A detailed design document will be required and the detailed design would be negotiated as part of the contract award.

Back to Top

 

  1. If yes - would this design satisfy the peering requirements that the State of Ohio is requesting between the provider network and the BON backbone?

It may, the specific technical details would be part of the final detailed design negotiated as part of the contract award.

  1. How many Classes of Service does the BON MPLS network support and what are their definitions?

Today there are not separate classes of service per se, at least in the traditional sense from a carrier perspective, rather, there are separate network services in the control plan via MPLS and Virtual Routing Instances.  These could be migrated to a class of service model easily.  The BON MPLS network supports normal priority and high priority.  High priority is used for time sensitive applications like interactive voice and video.  Normal priority is used for all other network applications.

  1. Is a Public Internet (“public” transport) based access arrangement preferred? 

Yes.

  1. Either “in the clear” publicly routed IP and/or IPSec/SSL based secure IP access?

No.

  1. Would network based secure gateway services be acceptable for this arrangement, or need the equipment for this strategy be provided within/by the BON?

No.

Back to Top

 

  1. Page 11 of the proposal mentions that vendors are encouraged and the State will facilitate the forming of collaborative teams/partnerships.  Does this mean that vendors are required to bid the entire state and set up partnerships to accomplish this?

Consortiums of vendors are encouraged to provide as much coverage as possible.  The State wishes to simplify administration of the delivery of the OH*IP services to reduce short- and long range- costs.

  

  1. Or are vendors permitted to submit a bid for only the services and coverage areas that each vendor can provide services?   

Bids on limited services to limited areas are permitted but more weight will be given to those proposals that offer a comprehensive package of service offerings to the greatest number of potential customers.

  1. Will each vendor be considered only for the coverage area where they can provide IP services to the State of Ohio?

Bids on limited services to limited areas are permitted but more weight will be given to those proposals that offer a comprehensive package of service offerings to the greatest number of potential customers.

  1. In the RFP, Section 2, it says the State has communicated to the service providers during this procurement process that it is willing to become an anchor tenant on a commercially provided statewide telecommunications infrastructure and is willing to share the BON's backbone services. The State is willing to be the anchor tenant in a manner that allows the prime service provider to share the infrastructure with commercial business and residential customers throughout the state. Sharing the infrastructure also includes facilitating competitive access to Internet service providers. Will the state please clarify further the previous statements that the State is willing to share the BON backbone, become the anchor tenant and facilitate competitive access to Internet Service Providers?

We currently have service providers sharing in the BON backbone which enables vendors to offer their services in conjunction with the statewide backbone to reduce last mile service costs. An example of vendors currently participating in this program are AT&T and Time Warner Telecom. Secondly, by providing a customer base for service providers through the sharing of BON backbone in these areas should provide the foundation for service providers to offer these services to a larger customer base.

  1. In the RFP, 7.1 -(Access) 6.1.3, it says the BON will accept an IP peering connection as an alternative to providing access to the OBN backbone. Explicitly, a peering connection will allow traffic to pass to all BON directly connected customers and all of the service provider's directly connected customers. The required protocol for exchange of routing information is Boarder Gateway Protocol ("BGP") version 4. The service provider must use globally routable IP addresses as well as a globally routable Autonomous System Number. What is the protocol for this solution?

BGP just as the RFP states.

Back to Top

  1. Is the State considering only Public Layer 3 Internet?

Yes

  1. Could the state please elaborate?

This would be direct IP peering as described, routes for all directly connected customers would be exchanged between the BON and the provider.

  1. In the RFP, 7.1 - (Access) 6.1.4, it says the network will have no more than 17 ms delay, no more than 29 ms jitter and no more than 0.25% packet loss. Does this requirement apply to all last mile access options only, or does it apply to access, distribution and core?

The intention was for local access, however, if the peering arrangement is to be pursued the 17ms delay would be waved for a national carrier(i.e. transcontinental traffic will be more than 17ms) the jitter packet loss requirements are universal.

  1. Also, if it applies only to last mile access, does it apply to all last mile access options?

Yes

  1. In the RFP, 7.1 - (Access) 6.1.5, it says there may be no more than 2 unscheduled outages per year between the hub and an end site. 

a. Will the state please provide their definition of unscheduled outage?

All unscheduled and unannounced outages that are not announced maintenance outages count. Announced scheduled maintenance not count.

b. In addition, does this include maintenance windows that are scheduled?

No

c. Are outages due to equipment failures, fiber cuts, etc., included?

Yes

d. Is this requirement intended for all Access Services, including Wireless, DSL, Cable, etc.?

Yes

Back to Top

  1. In the RFP, 7.2 - (IP Voice) 6.2.1.1, it says the routing of calls will require the Vendor's equipment to be connected to the BON. Does the State intend to route E911 traffic across the BON (POP to POP)?

We haven't decided completely, so we would be open to negotiating this  point.

  1. In the RFP, 7.4 - (Internet) 6.4.2, it says One-hundred percent redundancy with no single points of failure. Should an assumption be made that this requirement applies to the service provider core please confirm?

Yes

  1. In the RFP, 7.4 - (Internet) 6.4.11, it says to describe how security will be provided on the Internet connection(s). What specific criteria does the State require for security on the Internet connections?

We only require CALEA compliance. It is not our intention for the provider to provide IDS etc. 

  1. Page 41, section 2 references “attachment two.” Where is this attachment located?

We will eliminate the following phrases from section 2 with a formal amendment to the RFP:  “contained in Attachment Two” and “contained in Attachment Two.”  Thus, the revised section 2 should be addressed: 

2 - The Offeror certifies that it will not and will not allow others to perform work for the State of Ohio outside the geographic limitations or take data that belongs to the State of Ohio outside the geographic limitations with express written authorization from the State.

 

  1. Page 42, section 7 references “attachment three.”  Where is this attachment located?

We will eliminate the following phrase from section 7 with a formal amendment to the RFP:   “as required by Attachment Three.”  Thus, the revised section 7 should be addressed:

7 - The following is a complete list of all subcontractors, if any, that the Offeror will use on the Project, if the State selects the Offeror to do the work:

The Offeror certifies that it has obtained and submitted a subcontractor letter for each subcontractor its plans to use on the project.

 

Back to Top                                 Next 25 Questions and Answers

 

 

Pricing

Information

Current

RFQ's

 

For more information please contact one of the following people:

Debbie Farmer - Orders and Contracts - 614-644-5206

R. Denise Freshly - Contract Manager - 614-466-6060
Table