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

Rex Buddenberg <> Thu, 27 July 2006 21:27 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6DOT-0000aU-F5; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:45 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6DOR-0000aN-QE for; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:43 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6DOO-0003lE-Sp for; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:43 -0400
Received: from ([] RDNS failed) by 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 <>
To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:27:27 -0700
Message-Id: <>
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
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 15:48 -0500, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> Quoting "Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2" <>:
> > Howard,
> > 
> > 
> > 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

>  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