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

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:36:47 -0500

I'm wading through a weeks's worth of email, so this may have already been
addressed.

I think the initial concern is about IP networks within the core of networks
offered by the IXC carriers with whom the NCS already has contractual
relationships for GETS and GETS-like services.

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:34:58 -0500

On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 20:36 America/Montreal, Gunn, Janet 
> relationships for GETS and GETS-like services.

Ownership doesn't imply much of a relationship.  A large ISP whose 
parent
has lots of dark fibre was unable to get the Transmission folks (== 
SONET
and dark fibre) to let them have access to facilities.  This led the ISP
to go heavily into traffic engineering so they could glue together 
disparate
parallel links.

Most ISPs that are owned by voice IXCs are operated VERY separately
from the voice IXC subsidiary.  And in most cases that I'm familiar 
with,
the two business units are not on civil speaking terms.

So I don't think that those existing voice contracts relate to much 
probability
of getting an ISP contract with NCS for anything other than best-effort.

But it was a good topic to raise because I think that the stuff I've 
just
outlined might not have been obvious to everyone.

Ran