RE: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

Reinaldo

Comments in-line

At 02:29 AM 10/23/2005 -0400, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
>That is also possible and it might happen all the time.
>
>I think the threats you mention are quite valid but they will be no
>different if we have an emergency DSCP. The whole problem around
>contention of resources will continue to happen.
>
>My point is the same as before. How this hypothetical scenario is any
>different from what could happen today?

Because, as I see it - and please correct me if I am seeing this 
incorrectly - that doctor's call in the enterprise will not be starved off 
by any other call.

Yet, the way I have understood most, and I think the scenario you have 
brought up, the emergency calls will starve off, or at least adversely 
affect existing calls that can be the equivalent of EF marked in treatment.

Plus there is the issue that most employees operate under a subtly 
different set of laws and rules than the general public, usually starting 
with when an employee candidate signs a contract of employment reducing 
that person's rights in some ways.


>For example, today if something happens in an enterprise, will the
>emergency calls to 911 have better treatment than the doctor's call? You
>can also imagine a reversed scenario where I could argue that if the
>call made by the person in the next cubicle to his doctor blocks my call
>to 911 I will sue the company/telco.
>
>Any hospital in the US has the following recording "if this is an
>emergency, hang up and dial 911". If you really have an emergency, you
>should be calling 911, and not your doctor.

While in general, I would agree with you, there are some cases in which a 
doctor is who is to be called when you have an issue with something under 
their care.  I have experienced this first hand to know it is true in the US.

>If you call your doctor, you
>are implicitly telling the "system" that this is not an emergency.

That's the legacy system you are telling.  Whereas, with IP, we have many 
more capabilities (or should) to be able to differentiate one call from 
another. I believe that should one of the IETF's (and other SDO's) goals 
for emergency calling.

Please review ECRIT WG discussions as there are many references to this 
capability being on the to-do list of many areas dealing with this scenario.


>Somebody in a Telco told me that 911 calls are signaled different (which
>imply a priority over normal calls). Do you know if this a fact?

Yes, there are special facilities that 911 calls traverse, after the 
initial Class 5 switch towards the Selective Router, and on to the PSAP.


>Regards,
>
>Reinaldo
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James M. Polk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:23 PM
> > To: Reinaldo Penno
> > Cc: ken carlberg; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls
> >
> > At 08:45 AM 10/22/2005 -0400, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
> > >Your point is well taken James.
> > >
> > >Therefore, if we just continue with just EF for normal and emergency
> > >voice calls, the risk is the same, the drawback that I see is that we
> > >cannot prioritize emergency over normal calls.
> >
> > so here's the problem as has been presented to me by both regulators
>and
> > lawyers:
> >
> > In larger emergencies, many people will likely be calling for
>emergency
> > help, and some of them are not going to be calling (the equivalent of)
> > 911,
> > they will be calling their doctors directly - yet to "the system",
>these
> > will appear as normal packets, or normal voice (EF marked) packets. In
> > your
> > pondering, these packets will be subject to some form of lesser
>treatment
> > than perhaps the 10th or 100th call to 911, informing the PSAP of the
>same
> > event (perhaps a building burning).
> >
> > Here's the catch: who determined the 10th or 100th call to the PSAP is
> > more
> > important than the patient's call with their doctor - getting
>one-on-one
> > advice/help.
> >
> > I think the first lawsuit will stop that preferential treatment. I've
>had
> > this hinted to me by many
> >
> >
> > >So, in general an edge device that can perform SIP parsing and mark
> > >emergency calls with the emergency DSCP and others with EF DSCP.
> > >Alternatively, in a decomposed gateway scenario the SIP Proxy can let
> > >the router know that a certain call is an emergency and that it
>should
> > >be marked differently.
> >
> > or there could be a path coupled mechanism for such calls, but that
>has
> > its
> > challenges too
> >
> >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Reinaldo
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: James M. Polk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:02 PM
> > > > To: Reinaldo Penno
> > > > Cc: ken carlberg; [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls
> > > >
> > > > Reinaldo
> > > >
> > > > Adding fuel to a discussion that has churned on many lists over
>the
> > >last
> > > > several years, I'd really want to understand the threat anaylsis
> > >observed
> > > > by such a proposal (for a emergency DSCP) to ensure it could not
>be
> > >used
> > > > for a fairly trivial to generate DDOS on the network - even all
>the
> > >way to
> > > > the PSAP, or just used by neighbors wanting the very best
>throughput
> > >for
> > > > their game of Doom.
> > > >
> > > > At 10:57 AM 10/21/2005 -0400, ken carlberg wrote:
> > > > >Hello Reinaldo,
> > > > >
> > > > >>I read
> > > >
> > >
> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-10.txt
> > > > >>and was somewhat puzzled at section 4.1.2. I understand that the
> > >IETF
> > > > >>wants to be conservative in standardizing new DSCP, but it seems
>to
> > >an
> > > > >>emergency call DSCP would be accepted by the community (am I
> > >wrong?).
> > > > >
> > > > >well, from my own take, I would say that the "community" is not
> > > > >against an emergency call DSCP per se, but rather awaits specific
> > > > >proposals with a cautious mindset.  Recall from that section
>4.1.2
> > > > >that there is a need to define a behavior in addition to
>identifying
> > > > >a code point.  So if you want a code point of 1 or more bits for
> > > > >"emergency", what would be its defined forwarding behavior?
> > > > >
> > > > >one such proposal, primarily aimed at MLPP, is called Multi-Level
> > > > >Expedited Forwarding (MLEF) and can be found at:
> > > >
> >ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-silverman-
> > > > >tsvwg-mlefphb-03.txt
> > > > >
> > > > >I would also suggest reading a counter proposal that avoids
>defining
> > > > >a new DSCP:
> > > >
> >ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
> > > > >mlpp-that-works-02.txt
> > > > >you can dig around the TSVWG archives over the past 2 months for
>some
> > > > >comments on the draft.
> > > > >
> > > > >-ken
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >Ieprep mailing list
> > > > >[e-mail]
> > > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > >                                  *******************
> > > >                  Truth is not to be argued... it is to be
>presented.
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> > James
> >
> >                                  *******************
> >                  Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.


cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep