Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: Mike's scenario

From: "Gunn, Janet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:51:50 -0500

OK, I'll add another assumption
Assume that "organisation that is paying for the access link" authorizes the
user.
Or assume that "an authorizing body " (NCS or otherwise) has an agreement
(in advance) with the "organisation that is paying for the access link" to
recognize that authorization. (YES- I KNOW that to be  PRACTICAL/USEFUL you
would need a LARGE NUMBER of such agreements.)

-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:40 PM
To: ieprep
Subject: [Ieprep] Re: Mike's scenario

On Friday, Dec 6, 2002, at 13:22 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> [MAP] I'll try one more time. The question presumes the following 
> situation:
>
> 1. There is a government agency that "authorizes" indiviuduals to get 
> priority treatment. (How or why is not the issue here)
> 2. There is a service provider who has agreed by contract to support 
> this capabilitity. The service provider does not "authorize" anyone, 
> but presume that they must "authenticate" its use. (Whether they are 
> "paid" to do this is not the issue.)
> 3. There is a single 384 kbit/s path that must carry all the traffic 
> from the area (the redundant paths may have been taken out by the 
> terrorist act). There is no other "PVC" to route traffic onto. (Why 
> the service provider didn't have sufficient backup is not the issue.)
> 4. There is excessive congestion on the 384 kbit/s path, caused by too 
> many voice calls, all of which are getting unacceptable quality. (Any 
> data or elastic traffic has already been squeezed out.)
>
> If you don't accept the above as the case being discussed, please do 
> not respond.

	The scenario you describe does not sound realistic for IEprep.
In particular, the assumptions do not all seem reasonable to me (and
some few other folks here).

> How is the 1 authorized individual able to get their call through when 
> the link is congested by users without the special authorization from 
> the government?

	Authorisation from NCS (or whoever) is substantially less relevant 
than authorisation
from the organisation that is paying for the access link.  In 
particular, if it
is not NCS's access link on NCS's budget, then NCS does NOT get to set 
the policies
for that link.

	Instead, the end-user organisation who is paying for the access link

is the
only organisation with authority to set policy for those links.  The 
ISP does NOT
have that authority since it is not their link, so a NCS contract with 
the ISP is
NOT sufficient or terribly relevant.  In this regard, consider that an 
IP access link
is very much like last-mile PSTN to a home.  If there is an emergency, 
that does not
mean that some stranger gets to use one's home telephone unless one 
says they can.
(And I would not suggest that the stranger try to force the issue in 
places like Texas,
where there are decent chances the homeowner is well armed.)

	Note well that ISPs are NOT "common carriers" in the US and in most 
other
countries, unlike PSTN operators.

	For the person who has authorisation from *the end-user organisation

that is
paying for the access link*, that organisation can configure routers, 
switches,
and other devices to provide such preferential treatment (e.g. 
Class-based queuing
in the routers, switches, or other devices).  This can be configured in 
a variety
of ways, including access-lists, filters, and other 
implementation-specific methods.
A variety of implementation-specific, link-layer, and intra-domain QoS 
methods
(several of which have been described on this list in the past) can be 
used.

	Please note the absence of inter-domain QoS as part of the solution.

Ran
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
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, 12 Dec 2002 16:33:11 -0500

> would need a LARGE NUMBER of such agreements.)

Thanks.  You read more carefully than Fred, and its appreciated.

The answer to your followup question is at the bottom of my original 
message,

> that is paying for the access link*, that organisation can configure 
> routers,
> switches, and other devices to provide such preferential treatment 
> (e.g.
> Class-based queuing in the routers, switches, or other devices).  This 
> can be
> configured in  a variety of ways, including access-lists, filters, and 
> other
> methods (several of which have been described on this list in the past)
> can be used.
>