Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re: Looking for governmental feedback as well

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:27:07 EST

In a message dated 12/1/2002 11:30:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> So the question that we have to ask for ieprep is do we have a goal of 
> greater 
> redundancy for the Internet overall, greater redundancy for the government 
> sites 
> specifically, or a specific practise on a government access methods.
> 

[MAP] It's an interesting question or idea that IEPREP could write a series 
of BCPs advising people how to engineer their networks for maximum 
survivablity (i.e., through redundancy, route diversion, hardened sites, 
etc), but I don't believe that is what this WG was intended for.

This WG needs to define how to deal with the situation which might occur in a 
disaster when, in spite of all the above things being done, there is still 
congestion.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:50:59 -0500

On Monday, Dec 2, 2002, at 10:27 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> This WG needs to define how to deal with the situation which might 
> occur in a disaster when, in spite of all the above things being done, 
> there is still congestion.

FIRST, you need to produce a credible rationale for believing that the 
core
network will have congestion.  So far, all the disasters that have 
happened
(including some with multiple large fibre cuts) have NOT experienced 
congestion
in the core.  You and a few others keep asserting that we need to worry
about congestion in the core, despite all evidence (including the 
massive
fibre cuts and power outages in lower Manhatten on 9/11/01) saying that 
such
is not a credible problem.

Congestion in access links is of course routine, but is not something 
that
can be solved by an ISP since the access customer controls that link.

Ran

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