ulana@ulana.b.mitre.ORG (09/27/88)
The Electronic Systems Division (ESD) of the U.S. Air Force
is pleased to announce the award of the Unified Local Area
Network Architecture (ULANA) contracts. The ULANA contracts
consist of a integration and test contract to be managed by ESD
at Hancsom AFB, MA, along with an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite
Quantity (ID/IQ) contract to be managed by Air Force
Communication Command (AFCC) Engineering Installation Division
(EID) at Tinker AFB, OK. Two awards have been made: one to
Electronic Data Systems (EDS) Corp of Bethesda, MD; and one to
TRW Information Networks Division of Torrance, CA.
ULANA represents a major advance in Air Force networking as
it establishes an Air Force standard for Local Area Networks.
The ULANA program is providing the vehicle to purchase the
components and engineering services to assist in integration,
while the computer systems and LAN media will be provided under
existing AF contracts.
The ULANA program will provide a full range of LAN equipment
for Air Force use. Over 200 different LAN components and related
engineering services with a maximum value of approximately $150
million will be orderable under the ULANA contracts.
The ULANA program will provide standardized Local Area
Networking components based on the IEEE 802.3 standard and the
DoD suite of protocols (TCP/IP, Telnet, FTP, SMTP, UDP, ICMP) The
components available from the ULANA contract will minimize
"unique" LAN implementations within the Air Force and permit
interconnectivity between Air Force standard computer systems.
The computer systems that will be supported include Amdahl/
IBM with MVS, IBM with VM, Sperry 1100 with OS 1100, DEC Vax/
MicroVax with VMS, Zenith Z-150, Z-200, Z-248, IBM XT, IBM AT
Sperry PC40 with MS DOS and Xenix, Cromemco CS-220 with UNIX,
Gould 9050 with UTX 32, Honeywell with GCOS and NCR WS3000/
Burroughs XE520 with CTOS/BTOS.
Other equipment provided under the ULANA contract include
terminal servers, bridges, DDN gateway, LAN encryption and
media attachment units. The media supported by the ULANA
components include baseband (both 10base2 and 10base5), dual
cable broadband, single cable broadband, fiber, and twisted pair.
The initial test and integration contracts will be conducted
at a testbed located at Gunter AFB, Alabama. The test phase will
last eight months during which an Approved Products List (APL)
will evolve. After the products have been qualified and placed
on the APL, the components will then be orderable through the EID
by Air Force users. The dual award will provide a much larger
selection of similar components to better fit each user's needs.kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (10/04/88)
In article <8809271246.AA01355@ulana.b.mitre.org.> ulana@ulana.b.mitre.ORG writes: > > > The Electronic Systems Division (ESD) of the U.S. Air Force >is pleased to announce the award of the Unified Local Area >Network Architecture (ULANA) contracts. [...] > > The ULANA program will provide standardized Local Area >Networking components based on the IEEE 802.3 standard and the >DoD suite of protocols (TCP/IP, Telnet, FTP, SMTP, UDP, ICMP) The >components available from the ULANA contract will minimize >"unique" LAN implementations within the Air Force and permit >interconnectivity between Air Force standard computer systems. > [...] > > Other equipment provided under the ULANA contract include >terminal servers, bridges, DDN gateway, LAN encryption and >media attachment units. The media supported by the ULANA >components include baseband (both 10base2 and 10base5), dual >cable broadband, single cable broadband, fiber, and twisted pair. > Why didn't you just send a couple of bright Air Force officers out to InterOp last week with some spec sheets and some POs? You could have saved yourself a lot of money on consulting fees and you could have actually seen the stuff work before you bought it. Works for me.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/04/88)
In article <25188@bu-cs.BU.EDU> kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) writes: > Why didn't you just send a couple of bright Air Force officers >out to InterOp last week with some spec sheets and some POs? You >could have saved yourself a lot of money on consulting fees and you >could have actually seen the stuff work before you bought it. As they say: "A penny saved kills your career in the Pentagon." -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mckee@MITRE.ARPA (H. Craig McKee) (10/05/88)
>Why didn't you just send a couple of bright Air Force officers >out to InterOp last week with some spec sheets and some POs? >As they say: "A penny saved kills your career in the Pentagon." Kent England and Henry Spencer appear to be buyers, not vendors; they do not have to make a living trying to develop and sell goods and services to public or private agencies. Vendors want a fair shot at DoD dollars. When they don't get it they complain to their Congressmen, and Congress complains to DoD. DoD procurement officials have to justify their decisions. The justification must have been a bit weak a few years ago; thus the Competition In Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984. I'm not associated with the ULANA effort, but I do write technical performance specifications for military systems. The work is time consuming and expensive, but to paraphrase Churchill on democracy: It is the worst possible procurement system, except for all the others that have been tried. Regards - Craig
DOUG@mars.arc.nasa.gov (DOUG) (10/06/88)
In article <1988Oct4.164454.16174@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <25188@bu-cs.BU.EDU> kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) writes: >> Why didn't you just send a couple of bright Air Force officers >>out to InterOp last week with some spec sheets and some POs? You >>could have saved yourself a lot of money on consulting fees and you >>could have actually seen the stuff work before you bought it. > >As they say: "A penny saved kills your career in the Pentagon." >-- Cheap shots are all good clean fun, right? More than a couple of bright AF officers and contractors and civilians have been working ULANA for some 4 or 5 years. I think the spec was redone 3 times. The users are AF-wide, and getting that large a community to spec something in an evolving technology area like LAN architectures was a real pain. Tossing it off as a 2-person 2-week effort only shows your lack of background on the project and its scope. I didn't work on that project but I read 2 of the spec revisions in '84 and '86. Doug Olson Digital Equipment Corporation ex-USAF Lieutenant!
BILLW@MATHOM.CISCO.COM (William Westfield) (10/06/88)
In article <25188@bu-cs.BU.EDU> kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) writes: > Why didn't you just send a couple of bright Air Force officers >out to InterOp last week with some spec sheets and some POs? You >could have saved yourself a lot of money on consulting fees and you >could have actually seen the stuff work before you bought it. One should be somewhat more realistic. The number of vendors that you can go to and say "I'd like to buy 5000 IP routers, 4000 TCP terminal servers, and 1000 miles of assorted interconnecting cables over the next 5 years, and by the way, I expect you to install, interconnect, maintain, and train our personnel in their use..." is approximately 0. Thus some large company like TRW, who has experience in handling such large bids, replys, and THEY send people to Interop and realted shows to pick out routers, terminal servers, cable, modems, and so on. Trying to grow a huge network one or two pieces at a time can be a bad idea. (Trying to plan a huge network in one fell swoop can also be a bad idea...) William Westfield cisco Engineering -------
budden@tetra.NOSC.MIL (Rex A. Buddenberg) (10/06/88)
Kent and Henry, It would indeed be nice to accost the vendors, checkbook in hand. Unfortunately, government, and military especially, procurement just doesn't work that way. First of all, you have to understand that, between wars, and sometimes during them, the bean counters are in charge. The little guy behind four locked and guarded Pentagon doors is not a little man staring at a big red button. Rather, it is a little guy with green eyeshaes and a helluvalot of large tomes telling you why you can't buy the button, much less press it. Unfortunately, whenever someone tries to beat the system, often as not with the taxpayers best interests in mind, a scandal somehow erupts and congress gives the little guy some more rules to tell you how you can't do things. Enough flame -- there are some very valid reasons as well. Primary among these is standardization. To this audience, the first reason for standardization -- interoperability -- should be second nature. But, there is more. Standardization for logistics reasons is vital to the military. I've had to keep equipment operating in the Arctic, the Antarctic, Iwo Jima, Japan, and several places in between -- a lot of which aren't covered by your corner repair centers. The Navy currently haves something over 35 radar repeaters in their inventory and keeping them all in parts is driving the logistics guys nuts. The third reason for standardization is the human reason -- keeping maintenance and operator training costs within bounds. A common man-machine interface across a large installed base has very large (if subtle and usually unnoticed) benefits (remember the cars with push-button controlled automatic transmissions?). By far the most effective means to gain this standardization is exactly what the Air Force has done -- get an open, requirements contract out on the street. Then the whole Air Force, not just a couple bright guys, is only a PO away from a solution that has virtually all of the standardization benefits. Remember Herman Wouk's line in Caine Mutiny -- the system was invented by geniuses to be run by idiots. How many people in the Air Force really know what they should be buying? Rex Buddenberg USCG Headquarters
schoff@BEAR-MOUNTAIN.NYSER.NET ("Marty Schoffstall") (10/06/88)
One should be somewhat more realistic. The number of vendors that you
can go to and say "I'd like to buy 5000 IP routers, 4000 TCP terminal
servers, and 1000 miles of assorted interconnecting cables over the
next 5 years, and by the way, I expect you to install, interconnect,
maintain, and train our personnel in their use..." is approximately 0.
Thus some large company like TRW, who has experience in handling such
large bids, replys, and THEY send people to Interop and realted shows
to pick out routers, terminal servers, cable, modems, and so on.
Trying to grow a huge network one or two pieces at a time can be a
bad idea. (Trying to plan a huge network in one fell swoop can also
be a bad idea...)
And now for a philosphical question: Is this the shape of things
to come? Will future tcp/ip acquisitions (and possibly iso/osi
acquisitions when it becomes real vs when GOSIP specifies) be so
large and complex that only large companies will be able to bid?
Martyjbvb@VAX.FTP.COM (James Van Bokkelen) (10/06/88)
I can appreciate that a lot of work went into the spec, and I have only seen one piece of it (the TCP/IP specifications), but I get the feeling that at least a little of that was done in somewhat of an informational vacuum. Otherwise, why would they have: 1) asked that non-TOPS-20 systems support FTP's "page mode", 2) required Satnet Stream ID as an IP Option, 3) used the MilStandards even when they are obsolete (for FTP) or contain known errors (TCP and IP), and 4) not require subnet support? If the "Requirements for Internet Hosts" RFC had been done a year ago, would the authors of ULANA have known about it? Could they have used it, if they had (perhaps because it wasn't MilStd)? I hope that the next generation of this spec can, and does... James VanBokkelen FTP Software Inc.
perry@MCL.UNISYS.COM (Dennis Perry) (10/06/88)
Marty, these 'large' acquisitions are 'IDQ' type of contracts, meaing that a vendor supplies a shopping list from which the government may more easily buy and get support. The government does not guarentte any purchase but does limit the total value of the contract. Most of these supplies have teamed with the common vendors. If the favorite vendor of some government person is not on the list, I assume that he can still compete the purchase and buy it (maybe even sole source it if he has the requirements). The big problem that these contracts are supposed to solve is the integration and support role. I suspect that any vendor who would like to be on the approved list will eventually be able to go to TRW/EDS and get their product approved. dennis
Mills@UDEL.EDU (10/06/88)
Marty, I would assume acquiring a large GOSIP data network will be like acquiring a large ISDN (voice) network or a large PBX. System integrators, they're called, something like a cross between an elephant and a skunk. Dave
kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (10/06/88)
In article <12436099307.19.BILLW@MATHOM.CISCO.COM> BILLW@MATHOM.CISCO.COM (William Westfield) writes: >In article <25188@bu-cs.BU.EDU> kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) writes: >> Why didn't you just send a couple of bright Air Force officers >>out to InterOp last week with some spec sheets and some POs? You >>could have saved yourself a lot of money on consulting fees and you >>could have actually seen the stuff work before you bought it. > >One should be somewhat more realistic. The number of vendors that you >can go to and say "I'd like to buy 5000 IP routers, 4000 TCP terminal >servers, and 1000 miles of assorted interconnecting cables over the >next 5 years, and by the way, I expect you to install, interconnect, >maintain, and train our personnel in their use..." is approximately 0. > >Thus some large company like TRW, who has experience in handling such >large bids, replys, and THEY send people to Interop and realted shows >to pick out routers, terminal servers, cable, modems, and so on. Yes, that's right and I understand that both TRW and EDS specified cisco routers for ULANA.
kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (10/07/88)
In article <705@tetra.NOSC.MIL> budden@tetra.nosc.mil.UUCP (Rex A. Buddenberg) writes: > >Kent and Henry, > >It would indeed be nice to accost the vendors, checkbook in hand. >Unfortunately, government, and military especially, procurement >just doesn't work that way. First of all, you have to understand >that, between wars, and sometimes during them, the bean counters >are in charge. The little guy behind four locked and guarded >Pentagon doors is not a little man staring at a big red button. >Rather, it is a little guy with green eyeshaes and a helluvalot >of large tomes telling you why you can't buy the button, much >less press it. Unfortunately, whenever someone tries to beat >the system, often as not with the taxpayers best interests in mind, >a scandal somehow erupts and congress gives the little guy some more >rules to tell you how you can't do things. > I do understand government and military procurement. From 1979 to 1986 I was in the engineering consulting business working for consulting firms that had contracts with the Navy, primarily. I worked on ballistic missile guidance and shipboard navigation systems accuracy analysis and toward the end, on military tactical data communications systems, like JTIDS. I understand the business from the small business setaside end of the table. You know, where the dogs gather to pick up the crumbs from the mouths of the Big Guys. Those that run things are the procurement types. It's a frustrating business working on scraps from the setasides, and that's one of the reasons I got out. I don't mean to disparage you or anyone else, I'm talking about my personal views. I'm having more fun on the Internet than I ever would have figuring out how close to the Russian silo a D5 missile can get. :-) I really only meant to point out how nice InterOp was for someone who doesn't have the weight of the Pentagon behind him. I really don't imagine that the Air Force will ever be able to operate like a small, competitive enterprise like GM or IBM. I know the facts of life and that most everyone involved does his best to see that useful work gets done in spite of the system of doing business. So, for those of you still on the inside, good luck, have fun, and do a good job; I meant no disparagement to anyone working for or inside the government procurement system. I was poking at the "complex" Eisenhower talked about when he left the Presidency.
perry@MCL.UNISYS.COM (Dennis Perry) (10/07/88)
A cross between and elephant and a skunk? I guess that is appropriate, a large nose to be proportional to the smell! :-) dennis