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

From: "Garrity, Jack" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:07:02 -0500

Ken,

I'll try to evaluate your message content after you expand a bit on your
statement about "the current GETS system doesn't offer any special service
within a land-line exchange."  

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carlberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:03 AM
To: Sean Donelan
Cc: ieprep
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 1-5 - discussion
request

> http://www.atis.org/pub/clc/niif/issues/0207.doc
> 
> Although words like voluntary are used, unless the capability is widely
> deployed, it won't be very useful.  Its probably better to read the drafts
> with the understanding you will be implementing them, one way or another.

it depends on the capability and objectives one is speaking of.

folks running GETS will correct me on the following, but my understanding 
is that the NCS has business contracts with just a subset of telco 
carriers
to support additional functionality.  no contract, no special service.  
also, the current GETS system doesn't offer any special service within 
a land-line exchange.  finally, GETS doesn't allow preemption, just an 
increase in the probability that the call gets through -- with I believe 
caps on how many calls can receive the additional service.

taking a step back, this represents a nice design philosophy in that
added service does not have to span from end-to-end nor does it need
to be ubiquitous -- just try and focus on the perceived "hot spots".  
I would like to keep this philosophy in at least some of the drafts.

-ken

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

---

From: Ken Carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:29:16 +0000

> within a land-line exchange."  

by this I meant that if one were to make a 'local' call within a LEC 
(eg, Brooklyn NY, to Manhattan NY), the NS/EP code point and HPC
services don't take effect until the call signaling goes from the 
origin LEC to the IXC.  further, that the NS/EP call doesn't extend
to the destination end-office.  so things like extended trunk queuing
is not done along the entire path between the originator and the 
destination in the US PSTN.  have I got that right?

-ken