Re: re-charter

On Jul 13, 2005, at 5:19 PM, Richard F Kaczmarek wrote:

> 1. Signaling. Signaling requirements can be divided into two types:  
> (a)
> Signaling a request for emergency communications to an  
> authentication /
> authorization entity for approval, and (b) Signaling an authorized /
> authenicated request from the source to destination. Within the IP  
> network,
> SIP was found to be resilient in the face of congestion, so no  
> distinction
> may be required between the two signaling types. However, the delays
> associated with SIP under heavy congestion impacted its successful
> interoperation with SS7 signaling in the PSTN.

regarding these last two sentences, could you be more specific?  it  
sounds as though you did some testing, or are referencing a third  
party test, and I'm curious as to the bounds of the  "delays  
associated with SIP"  that caused the problem of interoperating with  
SS7 signaling.

> <snip>

> With the Cisco routers we were using,
> we could allocate bandwidth in the EF queue for emergency  
> communications
> and for normal traffic. In this latter case, some sort of marker  
> (e.g.,
> DSCP) may be needed for emergency traffic, but a unique per hop  
> behavior
> may not be needed.

for this last sentence, if what you are advocating is defining  
another DSCP value but with no distinctive corresponding per hop  
behavior, then I think that is a non-starter.

-ken