Transcript MPE - FMN Overview 25 June 2015x

UNCLASSIFIED
Mission Partner Environment (MPE)
and
NATO Federated Mission Networking (FMN)
Overview
BOLD ALLIGATOR CAOPT
25 June 2015
Joint Staff JS J6 DDC5I IID
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Agenda
• MPE Overview
• Joint Information Environment (JIE)
• JMEI
• US MPE and NATO FMN
• Parallel in synch efforts by other nations
• Coalition mission partner options
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Use Case Range of Military Operations
What is the CDRs intent?
What information needs to be shared?
What is the mission?
Who are the partners?
What classification and releasability level(s) do you need
to operate in?
Classified Releasable
FEDERATIONS of MISSION NETWORKS
UNCLASS
NETWORKS
MN BICES
US BICES-X
HA/DR
LOW
TO
HIGH
MCO
3
UNCLASSIFIED
Draft Operation XX XX (XXX)
Mission Network Relationships
UNCLASSIFIED
•
⁻
•
USA flag represents one or more
mission network node contributions
(Episodic MPE instance(s))
MP A
CJTF
“REL XXX” DOTMLPF provided by each Mission Network contributor
Network, capabilities, TTP employed therein to conduct XXX Ops
MP B
CFSOCC
Leadership direction, Culture change, and Practice
Governance
⁻
MP Q
MP X
MP Y
CFLCC
CFMCC
CFACC
MP C
MP P
Mission CDR specific as shaped by partner(s)
MP Z
•
SECRET REL XXX
Foundation of Trust - Collective agreement by originating XXX partners
Training & Education
⁻
•
Create XXX CoI?
“Third Stack”
⁻
⁻
•
Specific to XXX
XXX Policy
⁻
•
MN
BICES
Joining Membership and Exiting Instructions (JMEI)
MP D
CIAV (XXX specific activities per CDR’s Guidance)
⁻
⁻
Compare XXX partner operational processes
Deliberate “Do No Harm” coordinated change of DOTMLPF and TTP
Self provided National Secret
Self provided National Unclassified
Self provided Cross Security Level
Information Exchange Guard
Specific C2 relationships for OAR related exercises and/or operations is NOT depicted
4
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE and FMN
• US MPE and NATO FMN born of the same requirement document from COMIJC
• MPE and FMN concepts and implementation plan documents developed in
parallel with close coordination and collaboration
– Both leverage best practices & lessons from ISAF AMN federation, other missions & exercises
– Primary tenet of both: Apply current capabilities, equipment, skills, talent, and TTPs to a mission
network
• #1 challenge: Coordinating national/organizational implementation policies in a
“do no harm” manner to achieve “unity of effort” within a mission network in
pursuit of coalition mission objectives (Goal of CE14 FPC, documented in CE14MN JMEI)
• MPE JMEI Joining Instructions and NFIP Volume 2 Instructions contain the same
protocol standards, IA & Security criteria to create a trusted, protected and
secure federation of mission networks and standards for connecting six partner
“human to human collaboration” core services with each other
– US MPE and NFIP basic protocols, standards and trust criteria cross referenced and match those
referenced and used in ISAF AMN, CE13, CE14 and AC15 JMEI documents.
– ATO* for CE13MN & CE14MN network contributions demonstrated ability to meet foundational
MPE JMEI Joining Instruction and NFIP Instruction protocols, standards and trust criteria
5
*ATO = Authority To Operate
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
US MPE – NATO FMN Relationship
MN
BICES
NS
WAN
CJTF
CFSOCC
CFLCC
CJTF
CFMCC
CFSOCC
CFACC
CFLCC
CFMCC
CFACC
•
US MPE and NATO FMN conceptually alike
•
MPE (US led mission) – FMN (NATO led mission)
•
Federation of “REL TO Mission” mission networks model
•
Episodic in nature (temporary, built for mission)
•
Nations agree to trust and security criteria to “connect” mission networks
•
Trusted and protected connections made through Joining, Membership, and Exiting Instructions
(JMEI)
•
Nations provide their own equipment and TTP “federate” capabilities and TTPs
•
Partners replicate releasable, operational capabilities and TTPs within respective mission networks
**All flags representative only – notional laydown
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
NATO Federated Mission Networking (FMN) and
US Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Discussion Points
--Overall message: NATO FMN efforts and US MPE efforts are cut from the
same cloth and look to achieve similar objectives with similar materiel and
non-materiel tool sets
--Two key challenges within any partner entity:
• Culture change and implementation of organizational versions of MPE or
FMN concept to facilitate use of organizational DOTMLPF and Policy in a
trusted peer to peer coalition mission network environment
• Respective Program Office accreditation and governmental* approval for
release of organizational capabilities and technologies for use in a
mission partner environment with a specific set of mission partners
• Leverage reciprocity or streamline process to obtain or to reuse
accreditations and release* of organizational capabilities and technologies
for subsequent mission network environments with the same or different
sets of mission partners
*e.g. US ITAR = International Trade and Arms Regulation
Key = Managed Deliberate Coordinated Change Among Willing Partners
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
US - NATO Strategic C2 Relationships & Partnerships
Represents Any Nation or Organization
Nation / Mission Partner Funded
Mobile
Communications
XML
Exchanges
Global Integrated Operations
Enterprise & Mission Services
Mission Threads
CIAV
Joint Information Environment
Mission Partner
Environment
XML
Exchanges
Federated Mission
Networking
Operational Processes
Mobile
Computing
Strategy
Enterprise & Mission Services
NATO Common Funded
Connected Forces Initiative
Tactical
Operational
Strategic
NATO IT Infrastructure
Jolted
Tactics
Similar Tools and Processes Support Both
Global Integrated Operations and NATO Level of Ambition
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Roles, Responsibilities and Relationship
options within ANY coalition
• Eight options for mission partner participation within a coalition event. Only
one involves “joining” by contributing and federating a mission network with a
“core” mission network provided by a lead HQ or any other mission partner HQ
1) Contribute own network, resourced and governed by mission partner operating with
“Federation of sovereign
a "Releasable to Coalition Event Name" caveat.
mission networks” key tenet
of MPE / FMN
Frameworks
– Required: Receipt and full compliance with coalition event lead HQ JMEI documents
2) Request purchase, lease or loan extension of coalition event lead HQ network to own
forces/C2 nodes.
– Compliance with network provider criteria is required, assumes network provider has already fully
complied with coalition event lead HQ JMEI document criteria.
– No direct compliance with lead coalition event HQ JMEI template documents required.
3) Request purchase, lease or loan extension of a network provided by another
coalition event mission partner to own forces/C2 nodes.
– Compliance with network provider criteria is required, assumes network provider has already fully
complied with coalition event lead HQ JMEI document criteria.
– No direct compliance with lead coalition event HQ JMEI template documents required.
9
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
•
Roles, Responsibilities and Relationship
options within ANY coalition
Note: Mission partners may utilize a coalition event federation of networks
established to support a specific coalition event without selecting options 1-3:
–
No direct or indirect compliance with lead coalition event HQ JMEI template documents required
for any option below.
–
Data and information may flow to and from option 4-6 mission partner representatives in a variety
of different ways.
4) Embed a small or large force within another mission partner's force.
5) Send augmentees to coalition event HQ or lower echelon HQ or mission
partner HQ as augmentees.
6) Send personnel to coalition event as observers.
7) Advocate and support coalition mission in world forums via a variety of
communications media
8) Some combination of options 4-7.
"Releasable to Event" caveat means information is releasable to all coalition event mission
partners, not just those who contribute networks to a specific coalition federation of networks!!
10
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
NATO Federated Mission Networking (FMN) and
US Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Summary
•
Unity of Effort and Speed of Command within a coalition force requires
movement of coalition C5ISR operations and activities off of national or
NATO specific security domains
•
Federated Mission Networking and Mission Partner Environment frameworks
offer option of establishing a primary C2 mission network environment
specific to a mission/exercise/training event
•
–
Use is complementary to, not in place of, existing national, NATO, or other multi-national
network domains
–
Each coalition is different-- leverage common agnostic protocols, standards to establish
trusted and protected connections and compatibility criteria for six collaboration services as
a consistent foundation for each different coalition mission network
No new* equipment, no new skill sets, no new software, no new services, no
new people required to implement FMN and MPE Framework—just a desire
to participate and adjust to mission priorities
–
Partners bring own DOTMLPF capabilities -- whatever they are
–
All are treated the same—as peers-- capacity and size or organizational role does not matter
to security, infrastructure and information assurance accreditation teams.
–
*May require additional sets of current equipment/licenses if re-purposing of existing
equipment/licenses is not practical or available
Cannot “Surge” or “Pre-determine” Trust
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
•
•
NATO Federated Mission Networking (FMN) and
US Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Summary
Most difficult challenge to coalition mission planning is coordination and
adjustment of national and NATO policy implementations to establish
mission/exercise specific policies
–
Lessons from ISAF, CE2013, CE2014, IMMEDIATE RESPONSE 14 , CLEVER FERRET 14,
AUSTERE CHALLENGE 2015, any other coalition event planning process
–
Culture and policy adjustments---perform coalition mission tasks on mission network,
national business on national network, business with NGOs and others on Unclassified
networks
Practice and more practice is only tried and true method of increasing trust
among mission partners and reducing time to implement trusted networkenabled information sharing arrangements.
–
Trust can be gained by practice and familiarity with partner DOTMLPF and Policies—practice
must include training audience “6s”!
–
COMBINED ENDEAVOR 2013/2014 & AUSTERE CHALLENGE 15 achieved FMN/MPE
objectives with current DOTMLPF and Policies
–
BOLD QUEST 15.2
Cannot “Surge” or “Pre-determine” Trust
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
You Can’t Surge Trust;
Mission Partners Get A Vote
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Back Up
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
ACME - Episodic Capability
ACME = Austere Challenge [15] Mission Environment
•
AC15 Joining Membership and Exiting Instructions (JMEI)
•
Policy: Collective agreement for AC15
•
Management: AC15 NETOPS
Self provided National Secret
Self provided National Unclassified
USA provided Multi-National (MN) BICES
Self provided Cross Security Level
Information Exchange Guard
ACME
•
“Third Stack”: Provided by each ACME network
Contribution (USA, LTU)
REL AC15
– Piggyback arrangements follow provider governance
and protection requirements (must be a coalition member)
CJTF
•
Training: Per AC15 training audience and
scenario requirements
CFSOCC
•
Governance: AC15 CJTF CJ6 overall,
Each ACME network contribution
governed, resourced and protected by owner
CFLCC
•
CIAV: Embedded in AC15 planning and
execution process to include “Do no harm” change
management
CFMCC
CFACC
Other USA
Locations
ACME: Represents an overarching framework for AC15 to enable network contributing partners to
operate at a Secret REL to AC15 level based on CDR’s guidance and agreed upon CONOPS, TTP, Policy,
Governance, and Common Standards
15
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Mission Partner Environment (MPE)
Operational Context: As a standard practice, US Forces use SIPRNet as the
primary warfighting network for operations. In Afghanistan, this constrained the
ability of US commanders to speak with immediacy to all operational commanders
(mission partners)
•
The need to mitigate risk and provide the commanders with strategic, operational and
tactical flexibility spurred the development of the Afghanistan Mission Network (AMN) for
coalition information sharing & mission tasks -- get the “fight” off the SIPRNet
Lessons Learned & Guiding Principles:
•
Operational imperative – unity of effort, enable communications with all mission partners
to execute the Commander’s intent in a single security and releasability environment.
•
MPE is not a single network – it is a framework describing USA contribution(s) to a
federation of partner provided mission specific networks, systems, and TTPs
•
No intent establish a new “program of record” as MPE is not a “thing” to purchase; focus
is on re-purposing existing materiel and non-materiel enablers and capabilities.
•
Alignment with NATO’s Federated Mission Networking (FMN)
“We’re one year away from forgetting everything we learned in Afghanistan.”
16
Iron Major, USMC - Communications Officer
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Operational Context
•
Lesson Learned: USA use of SIPRNet as primary C2 network during mission partner operations
generates strategic, operational and tactical limitations:
– Forces on different networks with inadequate cross-domain solutions resulted in poor
ops, planning and intelligence information exchange between NATO, U.S. and other
partner forces in ISAF
– Non-materiel DOTMLPF, TTP and Policy solutions as or MORE important than materiel
solutions
•
Need for strategic to tactical human-to-human information exchange in a common language
on same security and releasability level in real time – share by default; classify by exception
•
Consistent DoD ability to employ in-place information sharing, TTP, and operational C4ISR to
support both persistent and episodic (mission specific) operations with mission partners
•
MPE leverages a “federation of sovereign C2 networks” created by the contribution of two or
more nation “mission networks” to establish a mission specific enterprise in which all mission
partners may operate as peers within a single classification and releasability policy
Solution: Move coalition fight off of national networks [SIPRNet]
17
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
NATO
/ ISAF UNCLASSIFIED
NATO / ISAF UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Enduring and Episodic Definitions
Application of MPE Principles and Network Relationships and Characteristics differ
(known steady state relationships vs. unknown situation shaped coalition membership)
•
MPE Enduring: Strategic Level (information sharing & planning)
– Asynchronous and non-real time information sharing
– Persistent – time not a factor
– Specified Mission Partners (bilateral or multi-lateral “Communities of Interest)
– Combatant Command (CCMD) HQ capabilities for Mission Partner engagement/planning
– Technologically dependent
– Integrated with and enabled by Joint Information Environment (JIE)
•
MPE Episodic: Operational to Tactical Level (Conduct Operations)
– Synchronous and near-real-time or real-time conduct of operational mission tasks
– Episodic – time to establish always a factor
– Mission Focused (exercise or contingency operation)
– Unknown mission partners, emergent mission; unknown duration
– JTF and component capabilities for peer to peer Mission Partner operations
– US may not be lead; but must leverage JIE to contribute DOTMLPF, P & TTP to coalition
“US and Mission Partners collaborate in Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Enduring environments day
to day with the capability to transition to conducting operations within a MPE Episodic for any operation”
19
UNCLASSIFIED
Joint Information Environment (JIE)
– Enduring & Episodic MPE
CCMD
Persistent  CCDR level  US Centric 
Bi-lateral /Multi-lateral  Specified Mission Partners
e.g. Existing bi-lateral and
multi-lateral network
relationships: MN BICES and
other named network
relationships, etc.
Enduring
MPE
“C”
Enduring
MPE
“A”
Enduring
MPE
“B”
CCMD
MPG
SIPRNet and NIPRNet
Connect
Access
Share
CCMD
Rel to Mission or Exercise
MPG
Episodic
MPE
JIE
CJTF
MP A
MP Q
MP B
MP X
CFSOCC
MP Y
LEGEND
National Contribution (3rd Stack); National DOTMLPF-P, IA, Security
National Classified Network (e.g. SIPRnet)
National Unclassified Network (e.g. NIPRnet)
Episodic MPE Federated Network; Commander accepts risk, sets rules
Enduring MPE Connection
20
Cross Security Level Exchange “Guard” MPG = Mission Partner Gateway
CFLCC
CFMCC
CFACC
MP C
MP P
MP Z
MP D
Temporal  CJTF level  Commander centric 
Unknown Coalition of the Willing
UNCLASSIFIED
Today’s MPE Enduring Environments
Collaborate and Share Information
Enduring
MPE
“A”
MN
BICES
CCMD
Enduring
MPE
Enduring
“B”
MPG
SIPRNet and NIPRNet
CCMD
JIE
MPE
MPG
Plus other existing bi-lateral and multilateral network relationships some of
which may not be directly connected to
current DoD Networks or future JIE
Connect
Access
Share
Tier 1 SIPR connection
currently
provides only CENTCOM
users access to the
US BICES-X FTI
Mission Partner L
Interim
TNE
PACOM
TNE
US BICES-X
FTI
Mission Partner M
CENTCOM
Mission Partner N
TNE
EUCOM
Mission Partner O
Mission Partners collaborate via a JIE Tier I environment but must be able to rapidly shift to operating
within a Episodic Mission Partner Environment (MPE) framework as situation(s) dictate
UNCLASSIFIED
21
UNCLASSIFIED
Mission Partner Environment (MPE)
Operational Context: As a standard practice, US Forces use SIPRNet as the
primary warfighting network for operations. In Afghanistan, this constrained the
ability of US commanders to speak with immediacy to all operational commanders
(mission partners)
•
The need to mitigate risk and provide the commanders with strategic, operational and
tactical flexibility spurred the development of the Afghanistan Mission Network (AMN) for
coalition information sharing & mission tasks -- get the “fight” off the SIPRNet
Lessons Learned & Guiding Principles:
•
Operational imperative – unity of effort, enable communications with all mission partners
to execute the Commander’s intent in a single security and releasability environment.
•
MPE is not a single network – it is a framework describing USA contribution(s) to a
federation of partner provided mission specific networks, systems, and TTPs
•
No intent establish a new “program of record” as MPE is not a “thing” to purchase; focus
is on re-purposing existing materiel and non-materiel enablers and capabilities.
•
Alignment with NATO’s Federated Mission Networking (FMN)
“We’re one year away from forgetting everything we learned in Afghanistan.”
22
Iron Major, USMC - Communications Officer
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Operational Context
•
Lesson Learned: USA use of SIPRNet as primary C2 network during mission partner operations
generates strategic, operational and tactical limitations:
– Forces on different networks with inadequate cross-domain solutions resulted in poor
ops, planning and intelligence information exchange between NATO, U.S. and other
partner forces in ISAF
– Non-materiel DOTMLPF, TTP and Policy solutions as or MORE important than materiel
solutions
•
Need for strategic to tactical human-to-human information exchange in a common language
on same security and releasability level in real time – share by default; classify by exception
•
Consistent DoD ability to employ in-place information sharing, TTP, and operational C4ISR to
support both persistent and episodic (mission specific) operations with mission partners
•
MPE leverages a “federation of sovereign C2 networks” created by the contribution of two or
more nation “mission networks” to establish a mission specific enterprise in which all mission
partners may operate as peers within a single classification and releasability policy
Solution: Move coalition fight off of national networks [SIPRNet]
23
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Enduring and Episodic Definitions
Application of MPE Principles and Network Relationships and Characteristics differ
(known steady state relationships vs. unknown situation shaped coalition membership)
•
MPE Enduring: Strategic Level (information sharing & planning)
– Asynchronous and non-real time information sharing
– Persistent – time not a factor
– Specified Mission Partners (bilateral or multi-lateral “Communities of Interest)
– Combatant Command (CCMD) HQ capabilities for Mission Partner engagement/planning
– Technologically dependent
– Integrated with and enabled by Joint Information Environment (JIE)
•
MPE Episodic: Operational to Tactical Level (Conduct Operations)
– Synchronous and near-real-time or real-time conduct of operational mission tasks
– Episodic – time to establish always a factor
– Mission Focused (exercise or contingency operation)
– Unknown mission partners, emergent mission; unknown duration
– JTF and component capabilities for peer to peer Mission Partner operations
– US may not be lead; but must leverage JIE to contribute DOTMLPF, P & TTP to coalition
“US and Mission Partners collaborate in Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Enduring environments day
to day with the capability to transition to conducting operations within a MPE Episodic for any operation”
24
UNCLASSIFIED
Joint Information Environment (JIE)
– Enduring & Episodic MPE
CCMD
Persistent  CCDR level  US Centric 
Bi-lateral /Multi-lateral  Specified Mission Partners
e.g. Existing bi-lateral and
multi-lateral network
relationships: MN BICES and
other named network
relationships, etc.
Enduring
MPE
“C”
Enduring
MPE
“A”
Enduring
MPE
“B”
CCMD
MPG
SIPRNet and NIPRNet
Connect
Access
Share
CCMD
Rel to Mission or Exercise
MPG
Episodic
MPE
JIE
CJTF
MP A
MP Q
MP B
MP X
CFSOCC
MP Y
LEGEND
National Contribution (3rd Stack); National DOTMLPF-P, IA, Security
National Classified Network (e.g. SIPRnet)
National Unclassified Network (e.g. NIPRnet)
Episodic MPE Federated Network; Commander accepts risk, sets rules
Enduring MPE Connection
25
Cross Security Level Exchange “Guard” MPG = Mission Partner Gateway
CFLCC
CFMCC
CFACC
MP C
MP P
MP Z
MP D
Temporal  CJTF level  Commander centric 
Unknown Coalition of the Willing
UNCLASSIFIED
Today’s MPE Enduring Environments
Collaborate and Share Information
Enduring
MPE
“A”
MN
BICES
CCMD
Enduring
MPE
Enduring
“B”
MPG
SIPRNet and NIPRNet
CCMD
JIE
MPE
MPG
Plus other existing bi-lateral and multilateral network relationships some of
which may not be directly connected to
current DoD Networks or future JIE
Connect
Access
Share
Tier 1 SIPR connection
currently
provides only CENTCOM
users access to the
US BICES-X FTI
Mission Partner L
Interim
TNE
PACOM
TNE
US BICES-X
FTI
Mission Partner M
CENTCOM
Mission Partner N
TNE
EUCOM
Mission Partner O
Mission Partners collaborate via a JIE Tier I environment but must be able to rapidly shift to operating
within a Episodic Mission Partner Environment (MPE) framework as situation(s) dictate
UNCLASSIFIED
26
UNCLASSIFIED
JMEI Defined
Joining Membership and Exit Instructions
• Not a new idea but a new term generated by ISAF coalition forces
• Old terms: TTPs, SOPS, other named products resulting from exercise
planning process or Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process
• In short, JMEI are a set of documents specific to a mission/exercise that
range from technical implementation guidance to establishment of secure
and trusted peer to peer communications to Mission[Exercise] CONOPS to
OPORDERs and FRAGOs to political guidance to agreements between
partners to Commander's Intent
• Operation [or Exercise] Orders, all OPORDER Annexes and any other
document pertinent to a specific mission or exercise are a part of the
collective set of documents referred to as “JMEI”
27
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE JMEI Joining Instructions Definition
MPE JMEI Joining Instructions – A set of mission and partner agnostic documents that describe
basic standards and compliancy criteria to establish a trusted and secure network relationship /
connectivity between US and “coalition of the willing” partners as well as compatibility of six core
collaboration services between network contributing mission partners
US objective: A consistent and repeatable set of MPE JMEI Joining Guidance across Combatant
Commands (CCMD) and Services to describe minimum criteria for technical connections, IA, security,
and six core collaboration services
• Benefit: Services and mission partner ability to train and equip to a standard that is useful
regardless of which US CCMD or contributing mission partner is the lead or what mission is being
executed
• Choice to train and equip forces to JMEI Joining Guidance is a sovereign decision—change(s) in
MPE JMEI Joining Guidance managed and coordinated, not governed, among a “coalition of the
willing”
• US DoD governs US train and equip processes
•
•
•
Content of US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions evolve in a consistent and complementary manner
with NATO Federated Mission Networking Implementation Plan Volume II Instructions
Partner MoDs govern respective train and equip processes
HQ NATO / Existing NATO processes govern train and equip processes to support NATO
Command Structure HQs
“MPE JMEI Joining Instructions contain the common “Lego Blocks” to enable more rapid establishment of trusted
network relationships between any unique set of willing mission partners”
28
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Event Specific JMEI Definition
Event Specific JMEI – A set of documents specific to a mission/exercise
•
Content ranges from technical implementation guidance to Mission/Exercise CONOPS to
OPORDERs/FRAGOs to political guidance to agreements between partners to Commander’s Intent
Starting point: Leverage and reference basic standards and compliancy criteria set in MPE JMEI
Joining Instructions [stated US goal is US MPE consistency with NATO FMN Volume II Instructions]
•
• Generated by mission/exercise lead HQ staff and mission partner reps to address all aspects of a
specific coalition mission or exercise with mission partners under a JTF Commander lead, lead Nation,
or exercise sponsor
•
Event specific JMEI are the products of Crisis Action Planning or a the planning process associated with any
exercise, test, experiment planning process
Benefit: Shape and drive collective DOTMLPF and Policy contributions to achieve mission objectives
via generation of event specific policies, operational procedures, and technical configuration and
security agreements tailored to address unique criteria and circumstances applicable to each mission
and partner set
• Commanders retain flexibility to shape and employ coalition force HQ and DOTMLPF of supporting
forces as they see fit to conduct operations in order to meet assigned objectives
• Mission partners respond to acknowledged leadership role of whomever is mission or exercise
Commander without giving up sovereign rights and responsibilities
Risk to nation by joining XX Mission Network Federation is less than NOT joining in terms of
resources, force protection, mission accomplishment
29
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Mission XX JMEI Development & Validation Flow Chart
Coalition Nations Prioritized by those
that provide
US FMN 90 Day Study Figure 7
Mission, Exercise,
Test, Experiment,
Training Event
Combat Power, Logistics, BOG*, etc.
JMEI**
CCMD
Standardization
US MPE JMEI Joining
Instructions signed by
JS J6 21 August 2014
MPE Joining Instructions
U.S.
Components
Systems,
Applications,
Services,
Mission Threads
MPE
Bi-lats/Multi-lats
Allies, Partners
CIAV***
Systems,
Applications,
Services,
Operational
Processes
Regional
Accommodation
Exercise / OPLAN Validation
Mission CAP/ Exercise /
Test Planning Process
Feedback
Event JMEI
“Execution”
J3
* Boots on the Ground
**Joining, Membership & Exit Instructions
***Coalition Interoperability, Assurance & Validation
Mission Partner Advance Planning versus Crisis Reaction
30
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
XXX Mission JMEI Development & Validation Flow Chart
US FMN 90 Day Study Figure 7
Coalition Nations that provide
XXX TASKORD,
OPORD, EXORD,
CONOPS, SOP, CDR
Guidance and
Intent, etc.
Combat Power, Logistics, BOG*, etc.
JMEI**
FMN Community
Standardization
MPE Joining Instructions
U.S. HQ &
Components
Systems,
Applications,
Services,
Mission Threads
XXXNet
XXX Partners
CIAV***
Systems,
Applications,
Services,
Operational
Processes
XXX specific tasks
and objectives
Exercise / OPLAN Validation
XXX Exercise Planning or Crisis
Action Planning Process
Feedback
Secret REL to XXX
XXX JMEI
“Execution”
J3s
* Boots on the Ground
**Joining, Membership & Exit Instructions
***Coalition Interoperability, Assurance & Validation
Mission Partner Advance Planning versus Crisis Reaction
31
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Why JMEI?
The term “JMEI” came about as HQ ISAF and HQ ISAF Joint Command (IJC) needed to be able
to provide nations [partners] wishing to contribute a national extension to ISAF AMN a
consistent and repeatable package of holistic guidance and procedures
• COMISAF could not “mandate” systems interoperability for the various national C4ISR
systems already in use, so the focus was on generating UNITY OF EFFORT by mandating
human to human collaboration leveraging the most basic standards and technical protocols
•In addition to being able to protect and secure a network to ISAF mission policies the only
other mandated criteria was to be able to communicate with other partners via six “core
services”
• Web browsing, Chat (NATO Standard XMPP technical format mandated), Voice Over IP Telephone
(VOIP), Video Tele-Conferencing over IP (VTCoIP), E-mail (with attachments), and Global Address List
sharing
• The result was an evolution of mission technical and procedural documents from “a
collection of workarounds” to a description of how to “federate” national mission network
contributions into a trusted and protected federation of partner DOTMLPF capabilities and
policies called “Afghan Mission Network”
• Operational and Functional ISAF documents also evolved to reflect operations as a unified coalition
force vice a partnership of multiple independent forces
Non-Materiel (DOT_MLPF) and Policy contributions by NATO and Nations to the ISAF coalition are
the most important contributing factors to ISAF mission success
32
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Repeatable JMEI for MPE / FMN
NATO and a significant number of nations came to same conclusion that operating as a part of a
coalition was most effective and efficient when coalition partners were equal peers within a
“mission network”
•
NATO consideration included coalition partnerships with non-NATO member nations
In order to leverage the “best practices” of ISAF AMN to inform establishment of a future “mission
network” while retaining the flexibility to adapt and adjust to any mission or mission partner set,
basic technical elements of JMEI were separated from mission specific and temporal policy driven
elements
Two categories of JMEI were born
•
JMEI Joining Instructions – A set of mission agnostic documents that describe a nations’ view of
the basic standards and compliancy criteria necessary to establish a trusted and secure network
relationship as well as compatibility of six core collaboration services between network
contributing mission partners (Repeatable and consistent across MPE and FMN documentation)
•
Event specific JMEI – A set of documents are generated by mission/exercise lead HQ staff and
mission partner reps to address all aspects of a specific coalition mission or exercise to include
partner agreements regarding compatible implementation of national security, identify and
access management and cyber defense policies within a federation of “mission networks”
Exchange and Access made “Practical, Efficient, and Effective” When all Participants are Conducting
Operations or Training at the “same Security Classification and Releasability Level”UNCLASSIFIED
33
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
First Cut BOLD QUEST MN 15.2 JMEIs
Policy (J6)
Infrastructure (C4AD/JDAT)
Accreditation Process
Exercise Statement of Security Compliance (ESSC) and Accreditation
Checklist
Authorization Templates (eIATT, eIATO, eATO, eDA)
Information Assurance Policy
Authentication, Authorization, Accounting
Removable Media
Contingency Plan
Cyber Defense Policy
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
Intermediate/Subordinate CA MOA
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) User Agreement
Network Interface Point (NIP) Design
NIP Router Configuration
Internet Protocol (IP) Routing
IP Plan
Router Naming
Router Domain Naming
Multicast
Border Gateway Protocol Routing
Time Synchronization/Network Time Protocol (NTP)
Data Transport Services (DTS)
IP Security / Virtual Private Network (VPN)
Comms (JDAT)
NetOps (C4AD)
Network Operations (NetOps) (TECHCON)
Trouble Ticket Procedure (NOC)
Information Management/Knowledge Management
(IM/KM)
Transition Annex
BQ Mission Initiatives (JFD/C4AD/JDAT)
BQ MN 15.2
JMEIs
Radio Plan (Single Channel Radio)
Call Signs and Routing Indicators
Frequency Management
Communications and Information Sys Security
Tactical Satellite Communications
Data Communications Network Plan
LINK 16 Communications
Communications and Information Systems Plng
Command and Control (C2) Services (Systems)
Force Tracking Systems (FTS) / Ground Forces Mgmt Svcs
IAMD
Core Services (C4AD/JDAT)
JFS JMT
DaCAS
Mail Routing (Email)
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Process Description (J6)
Cyber
Chat
Global
Address lIst (GAL) Synchronization
Joining Process Charts
Web
Browsing
Access
Domain
Name System (DNS) Summary
Joining Process Checklist
Template Joining Letter
Exit (C4AD)
Others?
Data Handling and Protection Guidance
Mission Network Exit Procédures
3
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Implementation / JMEI Change Management
The US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions were signed by LTG Mark Bowman, US Joint Staff J6 on 21
August 2104
• Distribution is to any and all partners
• Governance and implementation within US DoD to be accomplished via DoD 8110.1
Instruction (Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Information Sharing Capability
Implementation for the DoD) signed 25 Nov 2014 by DoD CIO and CJCSI* 5128.1 Mission
Partner Environment Executive Steering Committee (MPE ESC) Governance and
Management signed 1 October 2014
•
Policy. It is DoD policy that: MPE will serve as the framework for operational information sharing
between DoD Components and Mission Partners
Governance:
• Internal national [US] business pertaining to training and equipping forces per MPE JMEI
Joining Instruction standards
• Governance also reflects relationships and influence within a mission or an exercise
Management:
• US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions are living documents with updates derived from feedback
received from implementation in coalition events
• Change is via agreement, not consensus, among "coalition of the willing" to ensure coherent,
cooperative and deliberate change management process for minimum criteria for technical
connections, IA, security, and six core services with as many partners as possible given
sovereign decisions and political desires
• All changes deliberately made in close coordination with “coalition of the willing”
contributors (Management vice Governance)
•
Unilateral changes are/would be counter-productive
*CJCSI = Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CE14MN JMEIs
• Joining the CE Mission Network (15)
•
Policies for CEMN: PKI, Accreditation, IA, etc.
• Configuring the CE Mission Network (48)
•
Technical Guidance to provide trusted and protected environment needed to meet CE14
goals
• Exiting the CE Mission Network (1)
•
•
Guidance for protecting archived information post CE14
Procedures to gracefully exit CEMN federation
• CE Mission Network Membership (8)
•
NETOPS CONOPS, Cyber Security, Incident Reporting, IM/KM, Vulnerability Management,
etc.
• Event Specific Instructions (38)
•
Daily Battle Rhythm, ORBAT, Reporting Procedures, Trouble ticket, numbering convention,
SCR VHF, HF UHF, SHF Allocation, Network diagrams, Tactical Data-link verification, Friendly
Force Tracking systems verification, SATCOM Systems Information, etc.
• Admin (5)
•
Library of Terms, CE14 JMEI Structure, US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions
APAN link to CE14 Event JMEI documents:
https://wss.apan.org/s/CE/CE14/JMEI/Forms/JMEI%20Grouped%20View.aspx
3
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CE13 JMEI Trends and Statistics
47% Not followed or not read
CE13 JMEI Issues
30%
*e.g. missing
procedures,
delayed
equipment,
weatherrelated
problems, etc.
17%
Not Read, 43
Not Followed,
77
Restricted, 60
36%
64%
8%
Unclear,
21
24%
11% 8%
Incomplete,
28
Does Not
Exist, 6
Incorrect, 19
Participants not following, not reading or an outside restriction (technical or policy) with
CE13 JMEI are the primary reasons for accreditation issues
Compiled by CE13 C7 Assessment staff
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
CE14 Assessment Trends and Statistics
CE14 JMEI Issues
Unclear
5%
Optional
Compliance
Issues
8%
Restricted
10%
Not Followed
85%
Mandatory
Compliance
Issues
92%
Total JMEI
Deficiencies
Mandatory
Compliance
Deficiencies
Optional
Compliance
Deficiencies
Not Followed
Unclear
317
290
Compiled by CE14 C7 Assessment staff
27
271
Restricted
31
15
Restricted = Conflicts with national
policy or otherwise unable to comply
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Evolving to a Mission Partner Environment
[ISAF] AMN - Theater Specific
National
Connections
Webbrowsing
Mission
Threads
Email
Policy &
Governance
Chat
Training
CX-I
VTCoIP
GAL Sharing
Standards
VoIP
Pre-AMN
Doctrine &
TTP
CIAV
National
Connections
MPE- Theater Agnostic
Policy &
Governance
Chat
GAL
Standards
CX-”X”
Mission
Threads
Doctrine &
TTP
Training
Email
Webbrowsing
GAL Sharing
VTCoIP
CIAV-like
VoIP
National
Connections
some assembly required
MPE: Provides an overarching capability framework for CCMDs based on CONOPS, Doctrine, TTP, Policy,
Governance, Common Standards, Training, Interoperability
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Implementation and Policy Within US DoD
The US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions were signed by LTG Mark Bowman,
US Joint Staff J6 on 21 August 2014
• Distribution is to any and all partners
• Content derived from ISAF AMN JMEI and draft NATO FMN Implementation
Plan (NFIP) Volume 2 and informed by lessons from COMBINED ENDEAVOR
(CE) 2013 and planning for CE2014
• Governance and implementation within US DoD to be accomplished via:
• DoD 8110.1 Instruction (Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Information
Sharing Capability Implementation for the DoD) signed 25 Nov 2014 by
DoD CIO
• CJCSI* 5128.1 Mission Partner Environment Executive Steering Committee
(MPE ESC) Governance and Management signed 1 October 2014
• Policy. It is US DoD policy that: MPE will serve as the framework for
information sharing and conduct of coalition operational activities
between DoD Components and Mission Partners
*CJCSI = Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Mission Partner Environment (MPE)Traceability
 Strengthening Security Relationships: our relationships with mission
partners are a critical component of multi-national engagement and
support our collective security
 Combine capabilities with mission partners: form, evolve, dissolve,
and re-form in different arrangements in time and space
 Scalable: ranging from an individual unit enrolling the expertise of a
nongovernmental partner to multi-nation coalition operations
MPE Pedigree
Terms of
Reference
ICD/
CONOPS
JROCM
081-12
90-Day
Study
JROCM
026-13
MPE Enduring
(Tier 1) CDP
Joining
Instructions
CJCSI
5128.01
DoDI
8110.01
MPE Episodic
CDP
Both US MPE and NATO FMN efforts originated from the same requirement(s) document generated by
COMIJC, endorsed by COMISAF and forwarded up the respective US and NATO chains of command to
CJCS and SACEUR for endorsement. Both sets of leadership endorsed the requirement.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE and FMN Parallel Efforts
NATO FMN Implementation Plan (NFIP)
Volume 1 NAC approved 29 January 2015
US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions signed by,
US Joint Staff Director J6 on 21 August 2104
“US MPE AND NATO FMN efforts are in parallel and are deliberately aligned
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Operational Metrics
MPE “What”
•
MPE is a framework, a concept of operations. A JIE use case. MPE implementation is
represented by two or more mission partners agreeing to achieve unity of effort by joining
trusted mission networks together to form a federation of networks composed of collective
partner provided policy, transport, systems, applications, security, services and operational
processes..
MPE “So What”
•
Clearly communicate commander’s intent for desired operational effects with all mission
partners
•
Moves the fight off SIPR; allowing US and non-US formations, information, and data to
operate in the same battlespace
•
Greater flexibility in mission and task organizing to fight more effectively
•
US and partners fight with the equipment and TTPs they ALREADY own and train with
•
Addresses CCMD persistent info sharing requirements and JTF episodic events
•
Elevates mission partners to peers and recognizes their sovereignty
•
Defines the level of trust & addresses cyber vulnerabilities upfront
Mission Partner Advance Planning, Training, versus Crisis Reaction
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Implementation / JMEI Change Management
The US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions were signed by LTG Mark Bowman, US Joint Staff J6 on 21
August 2104
• Distribution is to any and all partners
• Governance and implementation within US DoD to be accomplished via DoD 8110.1
Instruction (Mission Partner Environment (MPE) Information Sharing Capability
Implementation for the DoD) signed 25 Nov 2014 by DoD CIO and CJCSI* 5128.1 Mission
Partner Environment Executive Steering Committee (MPE ESC) Governance and
Management signed 1 October 2014
•
Policy. It is DoD policy that: MPE will serve as the framework for operational information sharing
between DoD Components and Mission Partners
Governance:
• Internal national [US] business pertaining to training and equipping forces per MPE JMEI
Joining Instruction standards
• Governance also reflects relationships and influence within a mission or an exercise
Management:
• US MPE JMEI Joining Instructions are living documents with updates derived from feedback
received from implementation in coalition events
• Change is via agreement, not consensus, among "coalition of the willing" to ensure coherent,
cooperative and deliberate change management process for minimum criteria for technical
connections, IA, security, and six core services with as many partners as possible given
sovereign decisions and political desires
• All changes deliberately made in close coordination with “coalition of the willing”
contributors (Management vice Governance)
•
Unilateral changes are/would be counter-productive
*CJCSI = Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Mission Partner Environment (MPE)
“Third Stack”
Discussion
Joint Staff JS J6 DDC5I IID
Deputy Director Cyber and C4 Integration
Interoperability and Integration Division
20-22 January 2015
45
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
MPE Third Stack Food for Thought
•
What is a third stack?
•
Applicable to MPE Enduring? MPE Episodic?
•
“New” “Different” “Repurposed” Hardware? Software?
•
Strategic communications. J3 or J6 perspective?
•
Can do” versus “should do”- Priority: Cost savings or operational effectiveness of J3?
•
How does it all fit together? (Data storage -- operating system(s) -- work stations –
Transport)
•
Who provides and sustains?
•
Operational Requirements?
•
Reuse of DOTMLPF? Policy impacts?
•
Product?
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
“Third Stack” references
MPE Tier 1 [Enduring] CDP (21 April 2014). Foot Note 16. Figure 2 Page 7
A “Third Stack” is the IT equipment (workstations, routers, security components, servers, applications, and
peripherals, etc.) necessary to establish a mission network that facilitates information sharing with
mission partners. U.S. forces typically deploy with two sets of IT equipment (NIPRNET and SIPRNET) for
the conduct of operations. Additional investment may be required in the event that existing equipment
cannot support a releasable environment for an assigned mission.
FMN 90 Day Study
7.0 TECHNOLOGIES SYNDICATE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Page 36)
“….The study report recommends the pursuit of a hybrid Tier 1/Tier 2 architecture, adoption of specific configurations
for the six core capabilities within the Tier 2 networks, adoption of a “third stack”19 of FMN-ready servers and end
user equipment at appropriate echelons…..” Footnote 19: Same text as above.
7.1.2.1
Determine system requirements for a third stack capability based on mission thread requirements at
appropriate echelons (including CCDRs, Service-provided CTF HQs, Component Commanders and joint forces), and
integrate their requirements within the JMEI, ISAs and CISMOAs. Those units expected to fill the role of CTF
commander will also include the necessary capabilities to establish an FMN core.
– Environment infrastructure by and large already in place. Any unit with CENTRIXS-”X” capability.
– What is missing from most “third stacks” are warfighting tools
7.1.2.2
Deploy FMN third stacks to applicable units. [The need to deploy FMN third stacks will be reviewed once
the required number of FMN third stacks is determined.]
– One “third stack” already in place for many units/organizations within DoD.
– Supports in place MTs for that unit per ROC/POE. No more, may be less.
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
• Any event will have as many “stacks” as
participants wish to utilize in support of
various relationships both internal and
external to a specific event or mission.
Network Design-Domain View
BOLD QUEST / NIE 14.2
• “Third stack” is colloquial for “Mission
Network” in which operations are to be
conducted. There will be an physical or
virtual “stack” of equipment for each
network relationship/point of presence at
a given location.
• BQ/NIE 14 had four networks
identified on this slide.
EXCON
SIPR
ECC
MCC
C-S
Demo
NIPR
‘Demo
UNCLASS
4
Notes:
1.
There is no cross-domain solution
between SIPR and BQ Coalition.
Interface at HQs will be swivel chair
and LNO.
2.
Ground PLI will flow one way from
NIE to BQ (both ways in JTE)
3.
Air picture tracks may flow one way
from BQ to NIE (20% probability)
4.
No passage of traces / op overlays,
coordination measures etc.
between domains
5.
Air picture integration is a
significant risk
2
1
BQ
NIPR
NIE
3
NIPR
‘Coalition
UNCLASS’
‘
Coalition
SECRET’
C-S
SIPR
JTFHQ / CJFLCC
CJFACC
1AD
USMC
UK
Air Picture
Ground PLI
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Other
networks,
etc.
Generic “Third Stack” at any US location
SIPRNet Secret
Rel USA Only
Crypto
Third Stack CENTRIXS-”X”
Infrastructure
Crypto
Wide variety of applications, services,
portals, etc., to include six
collaboration services and most
“Warfighting tools”
Today only six collaboration
services with a few exceptions
NIPRNet UNCLASSIFIED
[Access] Rel USA Only
Crypto
Wide variety of applications, services,
portals, etc., to include six
collaboration services BUT very few
“Warfighting tools”
May be replaced with releasable database(s) per mission needs
Different Crypto
but may be same
switch to connect
to transport.
MPE Enduring and
MPE Episodic
Software location for
Operating Systems,
services
Data Storage location.
Separate from
Operating system!
Work Stations: Virtual
(VDI), Laptop, Desk Top.
May be repurposed to
any environment at low
cost and effort.
Repurpose workstations distribution per mission needs
Crypto could be in one
“box” or multiple boxes
Possible transport solution
for long or short haul
communication links as well
as within an organization
facility, base or platform
Crypto
Crypto
Crypto
Crypto
Crypto
Crypto
Internet
To a user, six different
“networks”, to a “6”
provider “one network”
UNCLASSIFIED
MEC User Terminal View – AVE 1.3
AVE 1.3 is based on NetTop 2.2
CENTRIXS
Agile Virtual Enclave (AVE)
• Includes a Second Wire for Unclassified Enclaves
Classified
Networks
J
K
• Implemented at USPACOM HQ
SIPR
VSE
CLASSIFIED
K
V
S
E
NIPR
J
UNCLASSIFIED
NIPR
SI
PR
InterNet
INTERNET
Unclassified
Networks
Cross Domain Baseline V 3.8.0 - 1 April 2011
50
UNCLASSIFIED
Roles, Responsibilities and Relationship
options within ANY coalition
UNCLASSIFIED
• Eligibility: Who is eligible?
– A mission partner wishing to contribute a network to a coalition federation
of networks MUST be a formal member of a specific coalition event*
– Obvious, but……. Coalition event membership is a political decision with
the only requirement being a statement of support for the coalition X
event task/objective in a world forum.
– Coalition event membership carries no automatic requirement to
contribute either personnel or equipment.
Coalition member ≠ Network Contributor
*Event = Exercise, experiment, test, training event, operational mission
51
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Why form ISAF AMN?
•
Persistent certainties acted upon by COMISAF in January 2010 when designing ISAF Afghan
Mission Network (AMN):
• A coalition Commander only has limited influence over sovereign coalition forces and
respective DOTMLPF-Policy after a coalition is formed
• A coalition Commander has ZERO influence over how those multi-national forces were
trained and equipped prior to mission/exercise execution
•
Share to Win” is more important than “Need to Know” among coalition partners which requires
movement of coalition force mission activities from independent network environments to an
environment in which all mission partners operate together as trusted peers
•
Key objectives of ISAF AMN
• Removal of policy barriers enabling sharing of information and direct collaboration between
NATO provided HQs and national forces supporting ISAF mission
• Mandate only those elements necessary to foster trust and enable “Rel ISAF” human to
human communications between and across all echelons
• Any existing machine to machine or procedural interoperabilities would be leveraged
• A short list of key functional areas necessary to achieve ISAF mission would form basis
of “ISAF Mission Threads”, identified gaps expected to influence subsequent national
train and equip efforts
COMISAF concern: Information exchanged via automated multi-security level guards or manual
processes was neither timely nor achieved with content and context intact --if transferred at all
UNCLASSIFIED
52
JIE –DI2E – Enduring & Episodic MPE
Mission
Partner B
Mission
Partner C
Mission
Partner D
Persistent  CCDR level  US Centric 
Bi-lateral /Multi-lateral  Specified Mission Partners
West
DI2E
East
Enduring MPE
e.g. Federated
US BICES-X
Mission
Partner A
Enduring
MPE
Enduring
MPE
Enduring
US BICES-X is an Enduring MPE
CCMD
MPE
South
CCMD
Mission
Partner E
e.g. Existing bi-lateral
and multi-lateral
network relationships:
MN BICES, PEGASUS,
CPN, other named
network relationships,
etc.
Mission
Partner F
CCMD
Rel to Mission or Exercise
MPG
Episodic
MPE
JIE
Connect
Access
Share
CJTF
MP A
MP Q
MP B
MP X
CFSOCC
MP Y
LEGEND
CFACC
MP C
MP P
National Contribution (3rd Stack); National DOTMLPF-P, IA, Security
National Classified Network (e.g. SIPRnet)
National Unclassified Network (e.g. NIPRnet)
Episodic MPE Federated Network; Commander accepts risk, sets rules
Enduring MPE Connection
Cross Security Level Exchange “Guard”
CFLCC
CFMCC
53
MP Z
MP D
Temporal  CJTF level  Commander centric 
Unknown Coalition of the Willing