Subject: RE: [Ieprep] a practical VoIP issue & context

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:07:32 -0500

Ran said on firewalls:
>For pre-planned VoIP deployments, this can be worked through by
>getting policies changed, upgrading firewall capabilities, 
>and so forth.

Yes, so we have identified that in context such as
"1.	N ETS locations with access links into the same ISP where the ISP
offers CoS. Note that the particular ISP, access link bandwidth, and local
configurations can be determined in advance of the emergency."
that the problem can be solved.

However, 
Ran also said:
>For IEprep use of VoIP, the reality is that most access links have a 
>firewall on the customer end and that firewall is likely to be pre-
>configured in a manner that blocks IEprep use of VoIP.

So, if the problem to be solved is more in a context of 
"2.	Emergency Worker accesses Internet via arbitrary connection (e.g.,
Internet Cafe).  Note that the ISP providing connectivity to the Internet
cannot be determined in advance." then there may be problems with voice
media streams being blocked or VoIP broken due to NAT.

Part of the impediments to ieprep progress (and this not directed at Ran) is
that all problems in all contexts and all requirements are discussed at the
same time.  However, it is more productive to define a particular problem,
the context, and try to find some effective reasonable way to approach it.

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:53:45 -0500

On Monday, Dec 2, 2002, at 08:07 America/Montreal, King, Kimberly S. 
> the context, and try to find some effective reasonable way to approach 

In this respect, James Polk's draft enumerating a wide (but incomplete) 
set
of scenarios is part of the reason that we keep talking about all the 
contexts
simultaneously.

If someone wants to narrow the scope of the WG activity, please someone
make a specific proposal.  I'd be happy to *reduce* the scope of this 
WG in
nearly any way at all (specifically including eliminating the WG out 
right).

Ran