![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
if not done already, I am wondering if requiring availability of a redundant network is workable. For example, like the satellite Link such as GEO, have to be bidirectional, internationally funded by good-will governments donations? IETF can work out the technical details? Pan -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean at donelan.com] Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 4:24 AM To: ietf at ietf.org Cc: Harald at Alvestrand.no; ieps at listserv.gsfc.nasa.gov Subject: RE: International Emergency Preference Scheme On Fri, 22 December 2000, "Folts, Harold" wrote: > Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald at Alvestrand.no] wrote: > > note - this effort is focused at recovering the society from > > a serious > > disaster, not recovering the network, I think. > > You are quite right. Recovery operations does primarily mean restoration for > society. However, recovery of network resources is often necessary to > facilitate the ultimate objective. Its usually doesn't get addressed directly in the priority scheme, but elsewhere. If you need to recover the network, none of the government priority schemes apply. The carrier has first dibs on their own infrastructure. What gets confusing is we don't have monolithic vertically integrated carriers. So it is possible to create a recovery deadlock.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.