Subject: RE: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 1-5 - discussion request

From: "Garrity, Jack" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:57:35 -0500

Bill,

I'll stick with the >85 percent yardstick, although you raise an interesting
point.  To extend it, I might calculate the percentage of three-party
conferences.  But that won't dilute the fact that more than 85 percent of
the access lines are served.  Some (a lot?) of those lines serve many
people.  Someone might want to calculate how many people-pairs are served.
Huge percentage, no doubt.

 ~~~ Jack ~~~
Work: 703/676-2358 | Fax: 703/484-0299
Home: 703/278-9250 | Cell: 703/508-0065
Email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:10 AM
To: Garrity, Jack
Cc: 'Ken Carlberg'; ieprep
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 1-5 - discussion
request

      On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Garrity, Jack wrote:
    > For the scenario you describe, the NS/EP codepoint and NS/EP features
take
    > effect at GETS-capable local exchanges.  Those exchanges serve over X
    > percent of US-based access lines, where X is on the order of 85
percent or
    > greater.
    > If the terminating local exchange is GETS-capable (same switches
    > as in the first paragraph), NS/EP features have effect.

So about 70% of U.S. domestic source-destination pairs are covered.  Since
as has been pointed out many times recently, there's no practical way of
distinguishing national borders on the Internet, I don't have
U.S.-specific figures.  However, if the DoD purchased GETS-like services
from the dozen or so usual suspects globally, they'd have only about 4%
coverage.  (20% of 20%, rather than 85% of 85%).  There are a _lot_ of
ISPs, and the large ones aren't that large relative to the whole.

                                -Bill

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

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:05:30 -0800 (PST)

> Huge percentage, no doubt.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

Whereas under the PSTN, this model works really well, and you get a huge
percentage of coverage at the (relatively) low cost of dealing with a
small number of large providers, AND I AGREE THAT THE NUMBERS BEAR THIS
OUT, you don't have similar leverage in the Internet, where you'd have to
deal with a huge number of mom & pop shops, and you still would only have
single-digit percentage coverage, which hardly seems worthwhile.
Particularly since nobody's established yet that a problem exists.

                                -Bill