Our Global Footprint

Definitions are everything

• Used: “home institution owned or operated global sites/campuses or centers”

to differentiate from global sites you may send your students to, but you don’t run

Where are we?

Location Year Started Bandwidth (MB) Total Faculty Total Studentslargest Abu Dhabi, UAE 2010 500 60 450 Doha, Qatar 2001 61 282 Doha, Qatar 2004 330 Fiesole, Italy 1979 500 5 20 Korea 2010 1000 20 200 London/UK 1998 100 7 66 Paris, France 2010 80 30 est ? Singapore 1998 100 Singapore 2005 1000 100 next Abu Dhabi 2007 100 Adelaide, Australia 2005 70 Alanya, Turkey 1989 500 5 20 Amman, Jordan 2009 ? 10 est ? KCMC 2010 30 London/UK (Conway) 2012 100 200 Shanghai, China 2006 40 6 200 next Beijing, China 2009 ? ? ? DKU (Duke) 2013 1000 Doha, Qatar 2005 2000 25 203 Dublin/Ireland 2002 ? 2 25 Florence, Italy 1995 100 20 375 Kigali, Rwanda 2012 24 next London, England 1999 100 20 350 London, England 2010 1000 20 260 Mumbai, India 2010 ? ? ? Rome/Italy 1969 <5 next Istanbul, Turkey 2011 ? ? ? Paris, France 1969 20 15 200

Arrangements

• Higher Ed Partners– Many collaborations with local universities

• Government Partners and Foundations– Collaborations with Abu Dhabi government, Chinese

educational ministries, government of Rwanda, Qatar Foundation (Education City), …

• Networking Partners– NREN relationships throughout the world. Active relationships

in London (JANET circuit sponsored by University of London Computing Centre), Israel (IUCC), Florence (GARR), Prague (CESNET via PASNET), and Berlin (DFN) complement our longstanding relationships with US-based RENs (I2, Nysernet, and others).

Total Headcounts Degree Granting

… the same

degree as the home

institu-tion33%

… no degrees, just study away

33%

…some the

same degree,

some not de-

gree granting

33%

Total faculty FTEs at ALL

2020

1601,500?

approx 18don't know, est 50

50

Total students FTE's at ALL

200200200200444503

1,2682,100

approx 150don't know, est 50-100

How have you provisioned network connectivity at your global sites/campuses

Commodity Internet connectivity contracted directly with a service provider

Commodity Internet connectivity provided or contracted by partner entity (government, host university, etc.)

R&E connectivity via international R&E network provider

R&E connectivity via Internet2

R&E connectivity via Internet2

Private connectivity between host campus and remote site

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Networking Issues

Cost of bandwidth

Performance characteristics (e.g., latency, jitter, etc.)

Bandwidth available from local/regional providers

Political restrictions (e.g., local or country-wide content filtering, regulations against certain collaboration

technologies such as VoIP, etc.)

Technical restrictions from provider (e.g., requiring NAT, IPv4 addresses unavailable/restricted, etc.)

Lack of R&E networking partners/organizations

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Which audio/video collaboration technologies do you rely on for interacting with your global sites

Consumer audio/video conferencing (e.g., Skype, FaceTime/iChat, Google Chat, etc.)

Web collaboration (e.g., WebEx, Adobe Connect, GoToMeeting)

Enterprise high-definition "presence" video conferencing

Enterprise non-HD or desktop video conferencing

Enterprise unified communications system (extension of home campus UC system, e.g. Cisco, Avaya, Alcatel-Lucent, etc.)

Cloud-based unified communications system

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Challenges• Time shift, network latency• Local Laws: There are disparate local laws, governing everything from software

acquisition to vacation policies for staff. Export controls. Multiple finance books.• Cultural issues: Every local culture is different, e.g., “Hurry up and wait.” • There are surprising issues and costs associated with establishing IT infrastructure

and services. Maintaining University standards at some locations. • Staffing: When to use local? Having enough knowledgeable staff.• Network connectivity & the power grid, robust enough? Affordable?• Each global program has needed different levels of support in its early stages of

development• Initiative has limited buy-in from faculty in general and incentives for faculty

involvement; students not initially aware of new programs being set up at global centers; lack of communication in terms of setup and planning for new centers with other parts of university, such as central IT, therefore infrastructure needs/wants and ties back to US campus not planned, communicated.

• Budget