Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Preferential Services

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:51:14 -0400

> You know, I think one thing that trips this group up is in the  
> title. The issue this Working Group is thinking about is not so  
> much "Emergency use of the Internet", which is often about  
> deploying a new network when the usual one has been smashed by a  
> hurricane or an airplane crash, but "Precedence-related Services in  
> the Internet".
>
> Would it make sense, in this recharter, to call it "Preferential  
> Services" or some such thing?

I would agree with Fred.  whether we use the term Preferential or  
Prioritized (my personal favorite :), I believe we gain something by  
focusing on the core of what one wants to accomplish.

Emergency/disaster can then used to provide further context on what  
some interested parties wish to address given an ability to provide  
or use preferential/prioritized service.

my 2 cents,

-ken

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

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:13:46 -0500

> or use preferential/prioritized service.
Your 2 cents are worth more than that, if you've provided an insight into
bounding two problems. One problem is prioritized/preferential communications,
which is an end-to-end service assuming the network can carry it.

"To provide" is the other part, which involves creating/preempting facilities or
ad hoc communications (not quite MANET, but MANET is worth reviewing) in not
just generic emergencies, but emergencies that involve significant damage to
network faciities, traffic overloads, or both.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:33:14 -0700

I think he is indeed getting at what I was getting at. The obvious  
use of preferential services is during emergencies, but this isn't  
actually about emergencies, it is about a preferential service.

Yes, emergency responders use manet networks among other things. I'm  
at a complete loss to say how the two issues became companded. 9/11  
was an instance in which telecommunications facilities were damaged,  
and that happened in Katrina as well. It didn't happen when that  
nutcase threw Sarin Gas into a subway in Tokyo, though, but I  
guarantee that the GETS-equivalent was used that day to punch calls  
through busy lines. Ditto recent bombings in London, Spain, and  
elsewhere.

Let's not add noise where we don't need it.

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:44:08 -0500

Quoting Fred Baker <[email-masked]>:

> at a complete loss to say how the two issues became companded. 

They don't have to be, as long as the Wise Advisors make sure that 
  (1) standards-track mechanisms both support preferential service, which
      may require precedence, admission control, or preemption. All of these
      functions may be required in emergencies, but have nonemergency uses.
  (2) new interconnection protocols (e.g., VoIP peering) are not as purist
      as Official Standards Bodies might like, recognizing that sometimes
      a U does need to connect to the N if only a NNI is available, or
      vice versa.

>9/11