RE: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls

"Reinaldo Penno" <rpenno@juniper.net> Mon, 24 October 2005 04:15 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ETtkD-000798-LI; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:15:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ETtkC-000793-80 for ieprep@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:15:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11898 for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ixe-nat1.juniper.net ([193.110.54.36] helo=up-smtp.jnpr.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ETtws-0002LJ-DI for ieprep@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:28:39 -0400
Received: from emailemea1.jnpr.net ([172.26.192.140]) by up-smtp.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:15:22 +0100
Received: from pi-smtp.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.36]) by emailemea1.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:15:22 +0100
Received: from proton.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.37]) by pi-smtp.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:15:20 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
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] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:15:20 -0400
Message-ID: <9BD5D7887235424FA97DFC223CAE3C280166770D@proton.jnpr.net>
Thread-Topic: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls
Thread-Index: AcXYTQYYFK867GbAQ+6X59uC72OxDAAA/MwQ
From: "Reinaldo Penno" <rpenno@juniper.net>
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2005 04:15:20.0827 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C552CB0:01C5D851]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e3901bdd61b234d82da85cc76f05a7e8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org, ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
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>
Sender: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org

Well, given that PSTN is resource contending having a different circuit
is a form of special treatment, isn't it?

The analogous in the IP world (which in bandwidth contending) would be
to have bandwidth reservation for a certain number of emergency calls?
Is that the direction the several WGs are leaning towards?

Regards,

Reinaldo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 8:43 PM
> To: Reinaldo Penno
> Cc: ken carlberg; ieprep@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls
> 
> Reinaldo
> 
> Actually, the PSTN does not give better priority to 911 calls (vs.
normal
> calls), they just use separate cirucuits once the 911 call gets to the
> first Class-5 switch.  Typically, a Class-5 Switch will have a small
> number
> of dedicated circuits that connect directly to a 911 Selective Router
> (which is a special instance of a Class-5 switch). 911 calls are
routed
> over these dedicated circuits towards the SR to then be routed to the
> appropriate PSAP. This isn't really anything special - since the
circuit
> world is not bandwidth contending, they are circuit contending.
> 
> At 10:55 PM 10/23/2005 -0400, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:50 PM
> > > To: Reinaldo Penno
> > > Cc: ken carlberg; ieprep@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls
> > >
> > > Reinaldo
> > >
> > > Comments in-line
> > >
> > > At 02:29 AM 10/23/2005 -0400, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
> > > >That is also possible and it might happen all the time.
> > > >
> > > >I think the threats you mention are quite valid but they will be
no
> > > >different if we have an emergency DSCP. The whole problem around
> > > >contention of resources will continue to happen.
> > > >
> > > >My point is the same as before. How this hypothetical scenario is
any
> > > >different from what could happen today?
> > >
> > > Because, as I see it - and please correct me if I am seeing this
> > > incorrectly - that doctor's call in the enterprise will not be
starved
> >off
> > > by any other call.
> > >
> > > Yet, the way I have understood most, and I think the scenario you
have
> > > brought up, the emergency calls will starve off, or at least
adversely
> > > affect existing calls that can be the equivalent of EF marked in
> > > treatment.
> >
> >[[Reinaldo]]
> >
> >But...the doctor call can will fight for resources in the same level
as
> >an emergency call. I guess we should introduce the concept of
"personal
> >emergency" and "collective emergency". If the building is burning up,
I
> >try to call the fire department, and the person in the next cubicle
> >tries to call his priest, which call is more important? I guess this
is
> >a complex issue. We will not be able to resolve it here.
> >
> >If the PSTN today gives better priority to 911 calls, we should
strive
> >to do the same for VoIP calls.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Reinaldo
> >
> > >
> > > Plus there is the issue that most employees operate under a subtly
> > > different set of laws and rules than the general public, usually
> >starting
> > > with when an employee candidate signs a contract of employment
> >reducing
> > > that person's rights in some ways.
> > >
> > >
> > > >For example, today if something happens in an enterprise, will
the
> > > >emergency calls to 911 have better treatment than the doctor's
call?
> >You
> > > >can also imagine a reversed scenario where I could argue that if
the
> > > >call made by the person in the next cubicle to his doctor blocks
my
> >call
> > > >to 911 I will sue the company/telco.
> > > >
> > > >Any hospital in the US has the following recording "if this is an
> > > >emergency, hang up and dial 911". If you really have an
emergency,
> >you
> > > >should be calling 911, and not your doctor.
> > >
> > > While in general, I would agree with you, there are some cases in
> >which a
> > > doctor is who is to be called when you have an issue with
something
> >under
> > > their care.  I have experienced this first hand to know it is true
in
> >the
> > > US.
> > >
> > > >If you call your doctor, you
> > > >are implicitly telling the "system" that this is not an
emergency.
> > >
> > > That's the legacy system you are telling.  Whereas, with IP, we
have
> >many
> > > more capabilities (or should) to be able to differentiate one call
> >from
> > > another. I believe that should one of the IETF's (and other SDO's)
> >goals
> > > for emergency calling.
> > >
> > > Please review ECRIT WG discussions as there are many references to
> >this
> > > capability being on the to-do list of many areas dealing with this
> > > scenario.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Somebody in a Telco told me that 911 calls are signaled different
> >(which
> > > >imply a priority over normal calls). Do you know if this a fact?
> > >
> > > Yes, there are special facilities that 911 calls traverse, after
the
> > > initial Class 5 switch towards the Selective Router, and on to the
> >PSAP.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >Reinaldo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:23 PM
> > > > > To: Reinaldo Penno
> > > > > Cc: ken carlberg; ieprep@ietf.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls
> > > > >
> > > > > At 08:45 AM 10/22/2005 -0400, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
> > > > > >Your point is well taken James.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Therefore, if we just continue with just EF for normal and
> >emergency
> > > > > >voice calls, the risk is the same, the drawback that I see is
> >that we
> > > > > >cannot prioritize emergency over normal calls.
> > > > >
> > > > > so here's the problem as has been presented to me by both
> >regulators
> > > >and
> > > > > lawyers:
> > > > >
> > > > > In larger emergencies, many people will likely be calling for
> > > >emergency
> > > > > help, and some of them are not going to be calling (the
equivalent
> >of)
> > > > > 911,
> > > > > they will be calling their doctors directly - yet to "the
system",
> > > >these
> > > > > will appear as normal packets, or normal voice (EF marked)
> >packets. In
> > > > > your
> > > > > pondering, these packets will be subject to some form of
lesser
> > > >treatment
> > > > > than perhaps the 10th or 100th call to 911, informing the PSAP
of
> >the
> > > >same
> > > > > event (perhaps a building burning).
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the catch: who determined the 10th or 100th call to the
> >PSAP is
> > > > > more
> > > > > important than the patient's call with their doctor - getting
> > > >one-on-one
> > > > > advice/help.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the first lawsuit will stop that preferential
treatment.
> >I've
> > > >had
> > > > > this hinted to me by many
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >So, in general an edge device that can perform SIP parsing
and
> >mark
> > > > > >emergency calls with the emergency DSCP and others with EF
DSCP.
> > > > > >Alternatively, in a decomposed gateway scenario the SIP Proxy
can
> >let
> > > > > >the router know that a certain call is an emergency and that
it
> > > >should
> > > > > >be marked differently.
> > > > >
> > > > > or there could be a path coupled mechanism for such calls, but
> >that
> > > >has
> > > > > its
> > > > > challenges too
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Reinaldo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:02 PM
> > > > > > > To: Reinaldo Penno
> > > > > > > Cc: ken carlberg; ieprep@ietf.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency
calls
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reinaldo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adding fuel to a discussion that has churned on many lists
> >over
> > > >the
> > > > > >last
> > > > > > > several years, I'd really want to understand the threat
> >anaylsis
> > > > > >observed
> > > > > > > by such a proposal (for a emergency DSCP) to ensure it
could
> >not
> > > >be
> > > > > >used
> > > > > > > for a fairly trivial to generate DDOS on the network -
even
> >all
> > > >the
> > > > > >way to
> > > > > > > the PSAP, or just used by neighbors wanting the very best
> > > >throughput
> > > > > >for
> > > > > > > their game of Doom.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 10:57 AM 10/21/2005 -0400, ken carlberg wrote:
> > > > > > > >Hello Reinaldo,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>I read
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-10.txt
> > > > > > > >>and was somewhat puzzled at section 4.1.2. I understand
that
> >the
> > > > > >IETF
> > > > > > > >>wants to be conservative in standardizing new DSCP, but
it
> >seems
> > > >to
> > > > > >an
> > > > > > > >>emergency call DSCP would be accepted by the community
(am I
> > > > > >wrong?).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >well, from my own take, I would say that the "community"
is
> >not
> > > > > > > >against an emergency call DSCP per se, but rather awaits
> >specific
> > > > > > > >proposals with a cautious mindset.  Recall from that
section
> > > >4.1.2
> > > > > > > >that there is a need to define a behavior in addition to
> > > >identifying
> > > > > > > >a code point.  So if you want a code point of 1 or more
bits
> >for
> > > > > > > >"emergency", what would be its defined forwarding
behavior?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >one such proposal, primarily aimed at MLPP, is called
> >Multi-Level
> > > > > > > >Expedited Forwarding (MLEF) and can be found at:
> > > > > > >
> > > >
>ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-silverman-
> > > > > > > >tsvwg-mlefphb-03.txt
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I would also suggest reading a counter proposal that
avoids
> > > >defining
> > > > > > > >a new DSCP:
> > > > > > >
> > > >
>ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
> > > > > > > >mlpp-that-works-02.txt
> > > > > > > >you can dig around the TSVWG archives over the past 2
months
> >for
> > > >some
> > > > > > > >comments on the draft.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >-ken
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >Ieprep mailing list
> > > > > > > >Ieprep@ietf.org
> > > > > > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > > James
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >                                  *******************
> > > > > > >                  Truth is not to be argued... it is to be
> > > >presented.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers,
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > >                                  *******************
> > > > >                  Truth is not to be argued... it is to be
> >presented.
> > >
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > James
> > >
> > >                                  *******************
> > >                  Truth is not to be argued... it is to be
presented.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> James
> 
>                                  *******************
>                  Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

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