RE: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED)

"Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@layer3arts.com> Thu, 27 July 2006 20:48 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6CmF-0007Jy-N6; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:48:15 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6CmE-0007HA-J3 for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:48:14 -0400
Received: from mail.manske.org ([65.127.251.7]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6CmD-0002Da-57 for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:48:14 -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 k6RKmBqQ061790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:48:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from hcb@layer3arts.com)
Received: (from nobody@localhost) by mail.manske.org (8.13.6/8.13.4/Submit) id k6RKmBGK061789 for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:48:11 -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>; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:48:11 -0500
Message-ID: <1154033291.44c9268b3205e@webmail.layer3arts.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:48:11 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@layer3arts.com>
To: ieprep@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED)
References: <9B4320CC9BC1D847AFFA97F25A422A59A972C5@vanualevu.disanet.disa-u.mil>
In-Reply-To: <9B4320CC9BC1D847AFFA97F25A422A59A972C5@vanualevu.disanet.disa-u.mil>
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: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
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 "Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2" <an.p.nguyen@dhs.gov>ov>:


> Howard,
> 
> Please see below.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:hcb@layer3arts.com] 
> >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:55 PM
> >To: ieprep@ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter
> >
> >Quoting Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>om>:
> >
> >
> >> Note that I carefully separated that into three broad categories:  
> >> UNI, NNI, and everything else. "everything else" is within a network,
> 
> >> and I think that is the network's problem although I may have some  
> >> suggestions. NNI may be able to be handled by SLAs, although one  
> >> could argue that the entire discussion here is regarding edge  
> >> conditions in SLAs. It is the UNI that concerns me the most, as it  
> >> tends to be the place where the biggest problems occur, and where  
> >> problems occur at NNIs they can be treated as a variety of aggregated
> 
> >> UNI. It is the NNI and the UNI that are most in view in RFC 4542.
> >
> >As a newbie to the list, but not necessarily emergency operations,
> there >may be
> >additional cases. In a large disaster, it may well be that
> >telecommunications
> >operating facilities may be the only available buildings with adequate
> >backup
> >power, HVAC, and physical ruggedness to stay in service. I've
> encountered >some
> >very ad hoc situation where emergency responders, PSAPs, etc.,
> temporarily
> >operated out of telco COs and the like. 
> >
> >It's not inconceivable, in such a circumstance, that such people may
> bring
> >equipment meant for UNI, in a facility with mostly NNI and other
> >interfaces. I'd
> >encourage thinking about that sort of ad hoc operational requirement. 
> 
> For ad hoc communications, do you think the IEEE 802.16x (a.k.a. WiMAX)
> and maybe with IEEE 802.11x (WiFi) would satisfy your requirements? If
> the answer is yes, then does the UNI include the WiMAX interface?
> 
That's a good question. My immediate thought is that potentially either would
work, probably more likely 802.11 if someone is moving temporary equipment into
carrier facilities. If the equipment speaks VoIP, and can use it as needed to
interface to tactical voice and data radio, an 802.3 interface puts us in
reasonable shape. That should cover many requirements.

My concern, and I agree some of this is hypothetical, is that some EOCs expect
PDH or ATM links to their switch. We'd need some survey data to find out how
frequently this would arise, and whether transportable gateways need to be
available.

There's a reverse side of this to consider, although it won't have as many
interfacing issues since the equipment is more self-contained. Consider the
situation where the telco offices are flooded, but a local hospital is on high
ground, has adequate generators, etc. It's a plausible place for helicopter
delivery of emergency radio repeaters, cellular base stations, etc.

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