Re: Preferential Services

Quoting Fred Baker <[email protected]>:

> 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. 

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  
> 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.
> 
> On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> 
> > 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.
>