Subject: RE: [Ieprep] IEPREP agenda Vienna meeting

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:54:03 -0500

>High Availability Networks               15 minutes
   >Discussion on high availability networks 

You mean high speed networks like Internet2 where BW*delay product 
is high? or a backbone network? If we have high availability, why 
should we worry about giving special priority to ieprep traffic?

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

---

From: "Steve Silverman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:31:02 -0400

As has been said many times before, not all networks have the
advantage of
optical bandwidth.  Some ships must make do with limited radio links.
There are
places in the world without fiber.  Some users require high
probability
of connection even when the emergency happens in a place with limited
bandwidth.

Steve Silverman

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 6:54 PM
> To: King, Kimberly S.; Ieprep (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Ieprep] IEPREP agenda Vienna meeting
>
>
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 13:24:24 -0500

At 08:31 PM 7/3/2003 -0400, Steve Silverman wrote:

>  Some users require "high probability of connection"

Steve - can you define this phrase (above) to me/us as it relates to an IP 
network?

>even when the emergency happens in a place with limited bandwidth.
>
>Steve Silverman

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                    The answer is "42", what's the question?

---

From: "Steve Silverman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:46:14 -0400

Obviously at the IP level, only packets are flowing and intermediate
nodes (routers) don't know about the connection.
But, "the President doesn't get a busy signal (or "No resources
available")  "
When he makes a VoIP call, his (or her) packets get thru and the
called and calling parties can understand
each other (enough packets get thru for usable voice).
Even if there are many people making voice calls or attempting voice
calls and the existing bandwidth
is insufficient, certain previously marked users get some sort of
priority so that they can
have useful voice calls.  This means that those marked users and their
called party's packets don't get dropped or delayed enough that those
packets are unusable.

Note that this is a functional description as perceived by the end
users.  While I have certain ideas
about how this might be accomplished, I am only proposing a functional
requirement here since that is all
IEPREP is allowed to do.

It should also be noted that this function has been available for 40
years and is a prerequisite for the DOD to
convert to VoIP.  They simply CAN'T migrate without it.  Some people
may disagree as to the "true" requirements
but certain major decision makers (JCS - Joint Chiefs of Staff) are
quite convinced about the need for this function.
I don't this level or management tends to spend much time on this
list.
Since I have no problem
envisioning scenarios in which this functionality is truly required, I
have no problem attempting to accomplish  it.
(e.g.,  Dec. 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor - "The Japanese have declared
war"....   )

I think everything above is old info on this list but I thought I
should respond to a direct question.

Steve Silverman

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:28:04 -0400

On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 18:54 America/Montreal, Ayyasamy, 
> should we worry about giving special priority to ieprep traffic?

And who is presenting what material in that slot ?

With all other non-administrative agenda items there is an I-D
as the basis for discussion AND the schedule presenter/discusser
is listed openly right now.

Could you please provide more detail on the above item ?
and its objectives ?

Thanks.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:38:50 -0400

On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 17:46 America/Montreal, Steve Silverman 

Thanks.

> should respond to a direct question.

The "old" DDN of the late 1980s reportedly implemented the IP ToS
Priority bits as per RFC-791.  One might imagine that the same
solution would work now that worked back then.  There are any
number of commercial products that could support such a deployment
today iff DoD decided to enable that configuration in the equipment.

A fair chunk of the deployed NIPRnet/SIPRnet equipment could support
MLPP tomorrow with a simple edit to the config file, if the applicable
DoD folks decided that they wanted to deploy such a policy.

Whether those DoD folks decide to do that or not is their internal
policy issue, not an IETF matter.

What I continue to have trouble locating in your notes is the IETF
standards problem, as different from a DoD-internal matter of what
existing technologies they choose to use or not use.

If this note is in some way confusing, I'm happy to drive in to
DISA/Skyline some day and walk through how it can be done with
existing technology with any set of interested folks.  The constraints
on the existing technology mainly involves inter-domain QoS --
but the DoD is a single policy domain so existing technology can
address the DoD VoIP deployment space pretty well.

GETS-like capabilities, which are generally inter-domain, are
somewhat more challenging to deploy with existing technology
for reasons discussed at great length on-list and in-meetings
in the past.

Ran

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:06:27 -0400 (EDT)

> And who is presenting what material in that slot ?

I will kick off a discussion on the topic

mostly to see if there is any different definition of a "high availability
network" than what ISPs are already doing (in the ISP space) or 
what an enterprise could do with today's technology (if it had
the network budget)

Scott