Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter

Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Tue, 26 September 2006 21:16 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSKIK-0003Yb-21; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:16:48 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSKIJ-0003V3-4C for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:16:47 -0400
Received: from [69.37.59.173] (helo=workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSKIH-00071n-S5 for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:16:47 -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 k8QM2wLG004265; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:02:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <200609262202.k8QM2wLG004265@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:27:19 PDT." <2253DBB7-88CD-4E44-B515-58FDC129541F@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:02:58 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
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 <2253DBB7-88CD-4E44-B515-58FDC129541F@cisco.com>
Fred Baker writes:
>  
> or whether drop priority even makes sense operationally, which it  
> doesn't.
>  
> On Sep 26, 2006, at 4:22 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>  
> > For example, it is important
> > to know how many priority/preemption values there will be and whether
> > each priority requires three drop preferences as required by an AF
> > service.


Fred,

For PSTN voice it doesn't but for elastic real time or elastic bulk
transfer it might.  What you are saying is that AF doesn't make sense.
Maybe it doesn't but if so the diffserv WG wasted a lot of time.
Either that or maybe ETS will never be anything but voice traffic.

Or perhaps you think the network is and always will be massively
overprovisioned.  The telephone network and IP infrastructure in
LA and MS was not overprovisioned after Katrina rolled through and
that was a time when a better ETS service would have been handy.

Curtis

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