Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter

Curtis Villamizar <> Thu, 28 September 2006 03:53 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSmxk-0006nf-BO; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:53:28 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSmxj-0006nV-MN for; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:53:27 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSmxi-0005RF-C7 for; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:53:27 -0400
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8S40bqa001750; Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
To: Fred Baker <>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:05:19 PDT." <>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:37 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: "James M. Polk" <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

In message <>
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".


Ieprep mailing list