Subject: Re: [Ieprep] draft-ietf-ieprep-requirements-00.txt

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 21:23:04 -0400 (EDT)

I think that Ran may well be right about the current architecture of
large U.S. ISPs (significantally over provisioned backbones) since it
agrees with what I have been told by people involved in managing some
of those backbones but I am not sure that Ran being right on this has
much impact on teh world that ieprep needs to worry about.

As Ran points out, access networks are frequently under-provisioned as
do the networks of smaller US and some non-US ISPs

ieprep has to assume that the networks over which ieprep services
will be needed are not all over provisioned and may be congested.
That congestion might or might not be generated by some emergency 
situation - I'm not sure that makes any diference.

Scott

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:32:49 -0400

> situation - I'm not sure that makes any diference.

Fine, but mechanisms (e.g. QoS) should be discussed in separate
documents from the high-level requirements document.  Right now
we don't have a high-level requirements document -- instead we
have a document that claims to be high-level requirements but
instead mixes and confuses mechanisms with requirements.  This
is a serious bug, one which that document's authors seem disinclined
to respond to when I raised it in the past.

Ran
[email-masked]