
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 8e Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Refresh Core and Distribution layers or Access layer only.
Cost Implications: ~$3,000,000
Pros:
(1) Reduces overall cost, making funds available to other projects.
(2) Some EOL components of the OpsLAN network are replaced with modern, supported
hardware.
Cons:
(1) EOL components not refreshed still expose the airport to elevated risk of network
failure, extended downtime of critical systems, and unpatched cybersecurity
vulnerabilities.
(2) Components not refreshed may be incompatible with newer infrastructure, resulting in
additional expense and resources to mitigate, or operate at extremely degraded
performance, negatively impacting airport operations.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – Replace individual components as they fail.
Cost Implications: $0
Pros:
(1) Financial resources and ICT staff are available for other projects.
Cons:
(1) The airport will remain vulnerable to operational impacts from EOL/EOS hardware, and
the elevated risk of failure due to age.
(2) Cybersecurity risk elevated due to hardware running outdated and unsupported
firmware and software. Airport operations will be severely impacted, should unpatched
vulnerabilities be exploited by threat actors looking to cause harm to the airport.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Refresh Core, Distribution, and Access layer network infrastructure making up
the OpsLAN network at SEA and deploy a network monitoring/management platform.
Cost Implications: $7,000,000
Pros:
(1) Refreshes EOL network infrastructure with more reliable, highly available, secure,
vendor-supported hardware.
(2) Reduces operational disruption risks due to failing or failed hardware.
Cons:
(1) Funds and ICT staff committed to this project are not available for other projects.