Subject: RE: [Ieprep] access links

From: "Nguyen, An" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:47:39 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: King, Kimberly S. [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:16 PM
To: 'Dean'; RJ Atkinson
Cc: ieprep
Subject: RE: [Ieprep] access links 

>Let's try to focus here.  

>The "voice quality" discussion, I believe, is restricted to voice quality
>over access links.  I take it we are assuming an ETS location has
contracted
>with an ISP and there is an access link between them.  It has been pointed
>out that ISPs don't often control QoS on this link.  

>Problem statement????  Everyone at the ETS location wants to make calls at
>the same time and the access link can't handle all that voice traffic so
>conversations degrade so much as to be unusable.  

>Potential solutions for problem...define the appropriate codecs, get a big
>enough access link, provision QoS on CPE or more drastically pay for QoS to
>be deployed on ISP router that faces the customer site, etc.

>Defining the problem to be solved with appropriate context information
would
>be helpful.

The problem with this is that you don't know the locations where emergency
occurs  in advance. You can't provision your access links everywhere around
the country. And that is not at all cost effective. If there is no way of
differentiating traffic, then the best effort traffic is best effort.

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:24:05 -0500

> differentiating traffic, then the best effort traffic is best effort.

But there is *nothing* the ISPs can do to fix an issue in the access 
links.
The ISPs don't control the access links -- the end users do.

And I really don't see how NCS could even work the contract logistics 
to get
contracts in place with all of the "obvious" end users (e.g. hospitals, 
police stations)
to pay them for the cost of doing anything other than best-effort on the
bandwidth that fits into their budgets.

And this ignores the fact that Northridge and Kobe affected a lot more 
than
hospitals and police stations.  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 ?

Let me try again, the Internet is DE-centralised, so ISPs do NOT control
the end access links which is where things might get congested.  Levying
requirements on (or making contracts with) ISPs still cannot fix access 
link
issues -- because the ISPs don't control the critical pieces on the 
access
links.

Ran