RE: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED)
Rex Buddenberg <budden@nps.navy.mil> Thu, 27 July 2006 21:27 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6DOT-0000aU-F5; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:45 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6DOR-0000aN-QE for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:43 -0400
Received: from virginia.nps.edu ([205.155.65.15]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6DOO-0003lE-Sp for ieprep@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:43 -0400
Received: from north-latitude.nps.navy.mil ([131.120.179.249] RDNS failed) by virginia.nps.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:28:22 -0700
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED)
From: Rex Buddenberg <budden@nps.navy.mil>
To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@layer3arts.com>
In-Reply-To: <1154033291.44c9268b3205e@webmail.layer3arts.com>
References: <9B4320CC9BC1D847AFFA97F25A422A59A972C5@vanualevu.disanet.disa-u.mil> <1154033291.44c9268b3205e@webmail.layer3arts.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:27:27 -0700
Message-Id: <1154035648.5427.318.camel@north-latitude.nps.navy.mil>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2006 21:28:22.0831 (UTC) FILETIME=[967F6BF0:01C6B1C3]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
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
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 15:48 -0500, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > Quoting "Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2" <an.p.nguyen@dhs.gov>: > > > > Howard, > > [deletia] > > > > 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. Howard, WiMAX payloads are wrapped in ethernet frames just like WiFi, DOCSIS, ... and ethernet itself. In 802 SAP terms, all use the 802.2 LLC. (And so will 802.20 and 802.22 if they ever see light of day, which is looking more and more problematic). The 802.16 gear we have in lab -- 2-3 generations worth now -- all has ethernet interfaces to the next network over. Both BS and SS. So my students simply see an RJ-45 plug ... and it works the same way their cable modem at home works. Bridging is so ubiquitous that nobody notices it anymore. > > My concern, and I agree some of this is hypothetical, is that some EOCs expect > PDH or ATM links to their switch. The 802.16 literature says 'does ATM' but I'm not entirely sure what that means. And because the military infrastructure has so little of it ... and definitely NOT on the battlefield, I've never worried farther. > 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. This is the situation we found when a colleague of mine looted my lab, grabbed a bunch of students and headed to New Orleans last fall. Ended up setting up in Waveland, Ms where there was essentially no infrastructure left -- no wired phone, no cellphone, and no electricity. The laydown consisted of: - an 802.16 backbone - an 802.11 access network at each .16 node (lit up schools, fire and police stations, a hospital and a couple other sites). J-random laptops could connect up. - concentrate the .16 stuff to a router that has a satcom link to undamaged internet (DoD-speak is 'reachback'). The kit the guys took had generators and assorted camping gear. _______________________________________________ Ieprep mailing list Ieprep@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep
- [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Robert G. Cole
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Robert G. Cole
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Robert G. Cole
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Howard C. Berkowitz
- RE: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED) Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2
- RE: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED) Howard C. Berkowitz
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Fred Baker
- RE: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter (UNCLASSIFIED) Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter ken carlberg
- [Ieprep] Question about the IEPREP Recharting Pro… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Fred Baker
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep charter ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] Question about the IEPREP Recharting… ken carlberg
- Re: [Ieprep] Question about the IEPREP Recharting… Hannes Tschofenig