Subject: Re: [Ieprep] identification of packets

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:57:49 -0600

> I also believe that messing with infrastructure
> requirements, for this stage
> of IEPrep effort, will not be productive.

I agree with you here.

  While a number of discussions in this list are 
interesting but most of them (including many of my
previous mails) are not relevant.

 First of all, this working group is not just about 
"operational" requirements. But, requirements which 
other WG can use as a reference when developing a solution 
for ieprep. I accept that it is difficult to
separate ieprep requirements which protocols (like SIP etc)has 
to solve from considerations for deploying such a requirement. 
But, for getting some work done, we have to treat them 
separately.

 Second, we often discuss solutions leaving the important 
requirements. For example, most of the ieprep requirements 
can be satisfied by over-provisioning. I can provide you with 
more solutions for ieprep(multicast, sensor networks, separate 
spectrum as proposed in EMTEL, overlay architecture,
VPN, ISLAY, QoS models etc...) I remember Fred slamming many for 
discussing the solution space. So, first lets do some 
requirements work before thinking about solution. It is relevant 
only when we talk about BCPs. 

 third, it is important for IETF to hear from other communities 
too (here, emergency response community.) At last, they are the 
once who are going to pay you(ISPs)for routing their packets. 

 So, why cant we start a separate interest list (like diffserv
interest list.... If your in Diffserv list, How many mail of yours 
have been bypassed to diffserv-interest list by Brian? ) to talk about 
all this other issues and leave this list for requirements 
discussion. 

 Also, I suggest we keep some separate threads while 
discussing each issue (like the same way
SIP requirements was discussed.) Else, it will boil 
down to another over provisioning discussion. 

 

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

---

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 05:44:17 -0500

Dave said:
>I also believe that messing with infrastructure requirements, for 
>this stage of IEPrep effort, will not be productive.

Agree.

>How do FEMA and Red Cross go about getting those big fat pipes when
>there are almost not data pipes around at all?

See http://tsp.ncs.gov/ for a solution to the above.

Kimberly

---

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:16:04 -0500

> On Saturday, Dec 7, 2002, at 08:06 America/Montreal, King, 
> Kimberly S. 
> For each site to maintain 
> > special
> > information between itself and 99 other sites is just 
> asking for major
> > disaster (no pun intended).

Ran said:
> It might not be so crazy -- or at least USG doesn't think it is.
> Part of the whole idea behind GOVnet was to create a large private
> network that would be dedicated to intra-government connectivity.

Creating a large priviate network dedicated to intra-government connectivity
is one thing.  Using special filters at each router configured and
maintained for each of the other sites to support QoS over the Internet is
another.

> Designing such a large private network to provide adequate capacity
> such that QoS mechanisms need not be deployed would simply be a matter
> of using current commercial best practices, nothing magical.

That sounds reasonable.

Kimberly