Re: Diffserv Code Point for Emergency calls

Reinaldo

Adding fuel to a discussion that has churned on many lists over the last 
several years, I'd really want to understand the threat anaylsis observed 
by such a proposal (for a emergency DSCP) to ensure it could not be used 
for a fairly trivial to generate DDOS on the network - even all the way to 
the PSAP, or just used by neighbors wanting the very best throughput for 
their game of Doom.

At 10:57 AM 10/21/2005 -0400, ken carlberg wrote:
>Hello Reinaldo,
>
>>I read
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-10.txt
>>and was somewhat puzzled at section 4.1.2. I understand that the IETF
>>wants to be conservative in standardizing new DSCP, but it seems to an
>>emergency call DSCP would be accepted by the community (am I wrong?).
>
>well, from my own take, I would say that the "community" is not
>against an emergency call DSCP per se, but rather awaits specific
>proposals with a cautious mindset.  Recall from that section 4.1.2
>that there is a need to define a behavior in addition to identifying
>a code point.  So if you want a code point of 1 or more bits for
>"emergency", what would be its defined forwarding behavior?
>
>one such proposal, primarily aimed at MLPP, is called Multi-Level
>Expedited Forwarding (MLEF) and can be found at:
>ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-silverman- 
>tsvwg-mlefphb-03.txt
>
>I would also suggest reading a counter proposal that avoids defining
>a new DSCP:
>ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg- 
>mlpp-that-works-02.txt
>you can dig around the TSVWG archives over the past 2 months for some
>comments on the draft.
>
>-ken
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ieprep mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep


cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.