Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Preemption

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:00:56 -0600

At 04:05 PM 3/26/2002 -0500, Gunn, Janet NE wrote: 
>
> It may be a bit more complicated than that.  
>  
> I am not sure about MLPP, but in eMLPP there are THREE indicators (in
> addition to level):
> Queueing allowed/Queueing NOT allowed
> CAN pre-empt a lower level call/CANNOT pre-empt a call
> CAN be pre-empted by a higher level call/CANNOT be preempted by another call,
> no matter what the priority.
>  
> Typically the "Ordinary" call has the lowest priority, but may neither
> pre-empt, nor be pre-empted.

I believe *all* you listed above are policy decisions that are local in nature.
If left to the end-users, they would choose "cannot preempt" every time.
Perhaps this could be dealt with via user authentication as to whether a call
from that user is or is not allowed to be preempted....

>
>  
> It seems to me that there MAY be a need for all three indicators in the
> context of an IP network also.

starting to get complicated with 3 indicators

>
>  
> The indicators MIGHT be tied directly to the level, but (especially if a
> single IP network is transporting calls from more than one carrier) might
> also be set on a call by call basis. So, it would be desirable for the
> protocol to have a way of capturing all 3 indicators.
>  
> Janet
>>
>> -----Original Message----- 
>
>
> *************************************
> "People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
> willing to allow for others"
>
> James M. Polk
> Consulting Engineer
> Office of the CTO
>
> Cisco Systems
> 2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
> Richardson, TX  75082 USA
> w) 972.813.5208
> f)  972.813.5280
> www.cisco.com