Subject: RE: [Ieprep] identification of packets

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 08:06:55 -0500

Rohan said:
>Hi Janet,

>Your scenario: FEMA wants to communicate with Red Cross is a useful 
>one.  While a few folks have responded with QoS related solutions and 
>VPNs, it is quite possible that the cost for FEMA and Red Cross to each 
>get several (diverse) big pipes well connected to the core may cost 
>much less than turning on QoS on smaller pipes.  I think these sites 
>could certainly justify a couple of OC3s which is where the queuing 
>delay starts to become negligible.

I completely agree with Rohan and it is also useful to keep in mind that
while the kind of QoS related solutions would be difficult enough between
two sites, it gets wildly out of control if you wanted to ensure that kind
of situation between the top 100 sites.  For each site to maintain special
information between itself and 99 other sites is just asking for major
disaster (no pun intended).

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:10:39 -0800

Folks

>>much less than turning on QoS on smaller pipes.

Kimberly> I completely agree with Rohan

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

However, I thought that IEPrep was intended for use in special circumstances
that challenge normal operation. For example, a hurricane has hit.

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

And for that matter, let's consider that it won't be just FEMA and Red
Cross.  It will be a mass of local, provincial, and national organizations
(and even inter-national organizations when entire regions are affected.)
Under these circumstances, a pair-wise solution does not scale to handle
everyone.

d/
-- 
 Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
 TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 14:06:25 -0500

On Saturday, Dec 7, 2002, at 08:06 America/Montreal, King, Kimberly S. 
> disaster (no pun intended).

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.

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.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:08:11 -0800 (PST)

> network that would be dedicated to intra-government connectivity.

Yeah, that's true...  I recently saw a grant offer from the USG to bring
any NGOs which didn't already have >=DS3 up to speed, and that's got to be
targeting thousands of organizations.

                                -Bill