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

"Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2" <> Thu, 27 July 2006 20:26 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6CR7-0001x7-Jb; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:26:25 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6CR6-0001x1-EL for; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:26:24 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6CR5-0001Oo-62 for; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:26:24 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:26:20 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:26:20 -0400
Message-ID: <>
in-reply-to: <>
Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thread-Index: Acaxto3xvqP8QiIGQR+pDudFcdgY4AAAr3cg
From: "Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2" <>
To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2006 20:26:20.0943 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC1461F0:01C6B1BA]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE


Please see below.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard C. Berkowitz [] 
>Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter
>Quoting Fred Baker <>:
>> 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
>operating facilities may be the only available buildings with adequate
>power, HVAC, and physical ruggedness to stay in service. I've
encountered >some
>very ad hoc situation where emergency responders, PSAPs, etc.,
>operated out of telco COs and the like. 
>It's not inconceivable, in such a circumstance, that such people may
>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?


Ieprep mailing list
Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE

Ieprep mailing list