Subject: [Ieprep] Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:13:50 -0400

Hello,

I understand this might have already been discussed (a lot) on the list
but I would like to voice my feedback.

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?).

I am talking to customers and facing an implementation dilemma on "how
to convey better than EF treatment in a standardized manner since normal
voice calls already use EF?" Should normal voice calls be demoted to use
AFXY DSCP?

Yes, I know, customers can define their own DSCP, map to a specific
queue in their routers, etc, etc. All this is good. However, the
feedback I am getting is that they would like a standardized DSCP for
emergency. The recent tragedies accentuated the need for such
standardization.

I understand there are several levels of emergency calls, etc but maybe
we could start conservative and define _one_ DSCP for emergency calls?

Thanks,

Reinaldo

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:57:58 -0400

Hello Reinaldo,

> 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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:01:57 -0500

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.

>you can dig around the TSVWG archives over the past 2 months for some

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.