Subject: Re: [Ieprep] access links

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:53:18 EST

In a message dated 11/14/2002 7:32:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Is NCS proposing to require that cable modem
> end users buy more capacity so that in an emergency, the police could
> use VoIP over the cable modem system ?
> 

[MAP] NCS (and the DoD) are certainly not proposing this. In fact, it seems 
to me that several of the opponents of doing anything in IEPREP are arguing 
something along the lines of "Just make sure you have plenty of excess 
bandwidth before an emergency occurs."

The whole point from the beginning for both NCS and DoD was to define ways to 
deal with the situation in which there is not enough bandwidth, but some 
continue to argue that this is not the purpose of this effort and that, in 
fact, this situation can never occur.

It certainly appears to me that the most important things to agree on at this 
week's meeting, are that:

1. Congestion can sometimes occur in some places
2. IEPREP (and then other WGs) are tasked to try to figure out how to deal 
with it.

Mike Pierce
Artel, under contract to support DISA

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:30:22 -0500

On Sunday, Nov 17, 2002, at 14:53 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> It certainly appears to me that the most important things to agree on
> at this week's meeting, are that:
>

I think there is broad agreement that congestion can occur on access 
links
(e.g. end user's T1/E1 to their ISP).

> 2. IEPREP (and then other WGs) are tasked to try to figure out how to 
> deal with it.

Operators generally think the fix for access link congestion, where it 
occurs,
does not need to involve any IETF standards, existing or new.

Sprint's new CoS service offering uses vendor-proprietary mechanisms
inside the pair of routers on the access link -- and is an existence
proof that IETF standards aren't needed to address access link issues.
(For more on Sprint's CoS product, please see Sean Donelan's email,
which included a URL for how the service is configured, including
configuration file fragments).

I'd like to add some other things to agree on at this meeting:

(3) Congestion is not a problem within ISPs, even during natural 
disasters
(e.g. Kobe earthquake, Northridge earthquake) or terrorist attacks 
(e.g. 9/11/01).
Instead, congestion is a concern focused on access links.

(4) No amount of money (or mandate) applied to ISPs can fully resolve 
the
access link congestion issues, because the access link is controlled
by the end-user, rather than being controlled unilaterally by the ISP.

(5) QoS deployment creates new vulnerabilities for the ISPs that deploy 
QoS.

Ran
[email-masked]

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

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:35:49 -0800

>> configuration file fragments).

This is true.

>> Instead, congestion is a concern focused on access links.

Correct.

>> by the end-user, rather than being controlled unilaterally by the ISP.

This is true as well, but it's worse. Some congestion is a
designed business decision (consider peering).

>> (5) QoS deployment creates new vulnerabilities for the ISPs that deploy 

Huge.

Dave