Subject: RE: International Emergency Preference Scheme

From: Sean Donelan <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Dec 2000 03:24:03 -0800

On Fri, 22 December 2000, "Folts, Harold" wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:
> > note - this effort is focused at recovering the society from 
> > a serious 
> > disaster, not recovering the network, I think.
> 
> You are quite right. Recovery operations does primarily mean restoration for
> society. However, recovery of network resources is often necessary to
> facilitate the ultimate objective.

Its usually doesn't get addressed directly in the priority scheme, but
elsewhere. If you need to recover the network, none of the government
priority schemes apply.  The carrier has first dibs on their own
infrastructure.  What gets confusing is we don't have monolithic
vertically integrated carriers.  So it is possible to create a recovery
deadlock.

---

From: "Pan Jung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:25:17 -0700

if not done already, I am wondering if requiring availability of a redundant
network is workable. For example, like the satellite Link such as GEO, have
to be bidirectional, internationally funded by good-will governments
donations?
IETF can work out the technical details?

Pan

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:50:18 -0800

>to be bidirectional, internationally funded by good-will governments

FEMA has such a network.

---

From: "Hal Folts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 18:11:35 -0500

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sean Donelan
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 6:24 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Hal Folts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 18:15:42 -0500

> vertically integrated carriers.  So it is possible to create a recovery
Sean, that's exactly right. The service prividers have full and primary
control of their resources for recovery purposes. However, there are issues
for restoration between providers.  Thanks for your comments.

Hal