Subject: RE: [Ieprep] any commercial usage for "emergency QoS"?

From: "Dvorak, Charles A (Chuck), ALASO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:10:50 -0500

Fred

You said: 

> (snip) AT&T and BT both also have had publicly 
> offered services of that type for several years. AT&T and BT, 
> BTW, appear 
> to be the principal contributors pushing the efforts in ITU 
> to normalize IP 
> QoS between service providers, as discussed in
> 
>      ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/ieprep/IP_QOS_Summary_Nov_2002.pdf
>      ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/ieprep/IP_QOS_Summary_Nov_2002.ppt
> 

I am not sure what you are trying to say in singling out AT&T and BT as
"pushing the efforts in ITU to normalize IP QoS between" service
providers, but as I see them here are the facts:

The contribution to the ITU proposing a requirements document for
end-to-end signaling of QoS for the IP layer was a USA position. True,
the initial contribution on these requirements was made by AT&T, but it
was actively edited and then the support for making it a USA position
was *unanimous*, with Cisco and many others in attendance and voicing no
objection. 

In any event, whether such a protocol is ever developed and/or used to
negotiate and deliver end-to-end QoS remains to be seen, but a service
provider needs to be able to deliver the requisite IP network
performance to support interactive voice and data applications, and do
so in a multi-carrier environment in which no one has control over all
bottlenecks in the end-to-end path. 

As per Sprint's presentation, our IP backbone is lightspeed and lossless
and we do some QoS stuff on access. While it works very well today, we
want a Plan B in case in the future it becomes necessary to use
end-to-end protocols to deliver the QoS users want. There are certainly
many issues. All this is being addressed in T1 and the ITU because the
IETF has been antagonistic to such a protocol (and we respect the
reasons articulated for such opposition, so we work this elsewhere).

Chuck Dvorak

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

---

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:57:39 -0500

>making this scenario work in a multi ISP environment would also
>be "fun"

in-ter-est-ing

---

From: "Carl Ford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:22:41 -0600

My first question would be what if access were to be unattainable to the Internet.  

When Hurrican Floyd hit north jersey,  we lost the tandem and therefore access to the 
outside world from the PSTN, the Internet worked because it was more redundant than 
the local switch.  But fundamentally the question that should be asked is what 
scenarios are there that would make the Internet inaccessible and what should be 
done to prepare for that.  Am I making sense?

kind regards,

carl

> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>     > We are trying to talk about "preparedness" for a traffic
>     > overload/fault condition that has never occurred. It did not occur
>     > on Sept 11 or in the "Baltimore Train Tunnel".
> 
> Right, so those were both examples of complete disconnection.  What's the
> condition that you believe has never occurred?  Can you define it for us?
> We're engineers; if you can define a problem, we can try to solve it.
> 
>                                 -Bill
>

---

From: "Nguyen, An" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:56:47 -0500

Probably, G.711 with Packet Loss Consealment (PLC) was implemented on the
Cisco 7960. PLC basically derives AT RANDOM missing or late packets from the
previous or subsequent ones in the jitter buffer. If packet loss is over
20%, users will definitely notice the QoS degradation ... 

Please read this to find out.

http://www.cconvergence.com/article/CTM20021005S0009

Regards,

An 

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne
To: RJ Atkinson
Cc: Bill Woodcock; [email-masked]
Sent: 11/28/02 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] any commercial usage for "emergency QoS"?

One should also add to this demo that it would have supported roughly 5 
people making phone calls simultaneously, if I remember the link 
bandwidth description correctly. (The codec used was G.711, I believe, 
since that's the default Cisco 7960 codec.)

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, Nov 26, 2002, at 21:31 America/Montreal, Bill Woodcock
wrote:
> 
>>> By the way, during the Nairobi VoIP demo in Atlanta, was there any
>>> use of IP ToS bits, DiffServ, or other QoS ?
>>
>>
>> Nope.  We wanted it to work.  Demos which fail aren't as impressive.
> 
> 
> So the demo might be an existance proof that VoIP works fine over
> a set of best-effort IP networks across 2-3 continents ?
> 
> Do you happen to have a traceroute handy for that to document how
> many ASs, hops, and continents that the demo traversed ?  (Feel free
> to omit the last few IP addresses since this list is permanently
archived;
> we don't want to accidentally encourage bored folks to attack the
> innocent user in Nairobi).
> 
> Ran
>