Re: [Ieprep] Preferential Services

"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@layer3arts.com> Tue, 01 August 2006 17:44 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7yHs-0006hD-M8; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:44:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7yHs-0006fq-Cv for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:44:12 -0400
Received: from mail.manske.org ([65.127.251.7]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7yHq-0007zf-W3 for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:44:12 -0400
Received: from mail.manske.org (localhost.manske.org [127.0.0.1]) by mail.manske.org (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k71Hi8VL061799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:44:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from hcb@layer3arts.com)
Received: (from nobody@localhost) by mail.manske.org (8.13.6/8.13.4/Submit) id k71Hi8IV061798 for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:44:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from hcb@layer3arts.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.manske.org: nobody set sender to hcb@layer3arts.com using -f
Received: from 24-182-173-239.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com (24-182-173-239.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.182.173.239]) by webmail.layer3arts.com (IMP) with HTTP for <howard@localhost>; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:44:08 -0500
Message-ID: <1154454248.44cf92e840d42@webmail.layer3arts.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:44:08 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@layer3arts.com>
To: ieprep@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Preferential Services
References: <72EC7AFD-0960-4EF0-B628-B8972D80C927@cisco.com> <BCC2E852-AC85-4870-8891-894FA2C9308D@g11.org.uk> <1154452426.44cf8bcab5463@webmail.layer3arts.com> <C0807170-9885-4DA7-9C66-C8AC4D15B5DE@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0807170-9885-4DA7-9C66-C8AC4D15B5DE@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1
X-Originating-IP: 24.182.173.239
X-manske.org-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-manske.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-manske.org-MailScanner-From: hcb@layer3arts.com
X-Spam-Status: No
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org

Quoting Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>om>:

> I think he is indeed getting at what I was getting at. The obvious  
> use of preferential services is during emergencies, but this isn't  
> actually about emergencies, it is about a preferential service.
> 
> Yes, emergency responders use manet networks among other things. I'm  
> at a complete loss to say how the two issues became companded. 

They don't have to be, as long as the Wise Advisors make sure that 
  (1) standards-track mechanisms both support preferential service, which
      may require precedence, admission control, or preemption. All of these
      functions may be required in emergencies, but have nonemergency uses.
  (2) new interconnection protocols (e.g., VoIP peering) are not as purist
      as Official Standards Bodies might like, recognizing that sometimes
      a U does need to connect to the N if only a NNI is available, or
      vice versa.

>9/11  
> was an instance in which telecommunications facilities were damaged,  
> and that happened in Katrina as well. It didn't happen when that  
> nutcase threw Sarin Gas into a subway in Tokyo, though, but I  
> guarantee that the GETS-equivalent was used that day to punch calls  
> through busy lines. Ditto recent bombings in London, Spain, and  
> elsewhere.
> 
> Let's not add noise where we don't need it.
> 
> On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> 
> > Your 2 cents are worth more than that, if you've provided an  
> > insight into
> > bounding two problems. One problem is prioritized/preferential  
> > communications,
> > which is an end-to-end service assuming the network can carry it.
> >
> > "To provide" is the other part, which involves creating/preempting  
> > facilities or
> > ad hoc communications (not quite MANET, but MANET is worth  
> > reviewing) in not
> > just generic emergencies, but emergencies that involve significant  
> > damage to
> > network faciities, traffic overloads, or both.
> 



_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep