Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Thu, 28 September 2006 03:53 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSmxk-0006nf-BO; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:53:28 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSmxj-0006nV-MN for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:53:27 -0400
Received: from [69.37.59.173] (helo=workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSmxi-0005RF-C7 for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:53:27 -0400
Received: from workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8S40bqa001750; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <200609280400.k8S40bqa001750@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:05:19 PDT." <08357DDC-1E93-4DC8-83C8-AC75D11FCB63@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:37 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, ieprep@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
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
In message <08357DDC-1E93-4DC8-83C8-AC75D11FCB63@cisco.com> Fred Baker writes: > > > On Sep 27, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > > Just confirming that Fred considers ETS to be voice only - at least > > for now. btw - I think that is a valid assumption - at least for now. > > depends on which "ETS" you're talking about. In the military space, > current proposals suggest at least one "preferred elastic" class > similar to AF for elastic applications as well as preferential real > time services for voice and video. In the civilian space, unless > Janet-et-al tell me otherwise, the current discussion is of an > Internet counterpart for GETS, which is to say that it is about voice. In the military space that I've heard about there is no non-military traffic so plain Ol' EF and AF should do it. If the military is using or begins using the commercial Internet as part of their ETS, then they can request DSCP codepoints for their EF (more than one is never needed if traffic is policed) and as many AF classes as they need (within reason). This would give military and non-military traffic separate DSCP codepoints to work with. Again, this might be a "later" when the military has deployed EF and AF and needs to extend this over the commercial Internet. If it is commercial Internet from day one, they can still use an existing AF class as long as the provider(s) have one free. It is very easy to do a DSCP mapping at an AS boundary and DSCP marked traffic is something exchanged only "among consenting adults". Such a mapping would make a smooth transition possible. Some of the things the military has pushed for either didn't happen or didn't work. For example, MARS and NHRP. It would be premature to assign codepoints for hypotheticals. So I think the "just adding one EF codepoint for ETS is OK for now" assumption still holds with the emphasis on "at least for now". Curtis _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
- [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter James M. Polk
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- [Ieprep] liason & the 5 priorities ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter (Implementation) Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels Janet P Gunn
- [Ieprep] Re: liason & the 5 priorities Curtis Villamizar
- [Ieprep] Re: liason & the 5 priorities ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter (Implementation) Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels ken carlberg
- [Ieprep] Re: liason & the 5 priorities Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter 5 priority levels Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- RE: [Ieprep] proposed charter GOLDMAN, STUART O (STUART)
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter James M. Polk
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Janet P Gunn
- RE: [Ieprep] proposed charter Dolly, Martin C, ALABS
- ETS applicability, was Re: [Ieprep] proposed char… ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter Rex Buddenberg