headers
Tolga Asveren | 1 Mar 2003 10:36
Picon
Favicon

Re: [m3ua]-AS-SG

Barry,
--- Barry.Nagelberg <at> radisys.com wrote:
> Tolga,
> 
> Please tell us where in the RFC or IG it is stated
> that an SGP cannot be 
> part of different SGs.
[TOLGA]from 1.2. Terminology section:
"Signalling Gateway Process (SGP) - A process instance
of a Signlling Gateway. It serves as an active,
backup, loadsharing or broadcasting process of a
Signalling Gateway."
Please note "of a Signalling Gateway". A comparision
with the definition of ASP can also make the
difference more clear.

In the messages between ASP/SGP we don't have any
identifier specifying with which SG the messages is
related. Messages are sent to a specific SGP/from a
specific SGP, and SG is implicityl indicated by the
selected SGP. And again because there is no identifier
for SGP in the messages, the only way to distinguish
between different SGPs is to use different addresses
for them. Please note, for AS this is different. We
have RC to corraleta the message with a specific AS.
So, that one ASP can serve multiple AS is not a
problem. Also I don't consider "to serve" and to be
part" relationships the same. Relationship between ASP
and AS is not the same with the relationship between
SGP and SG.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Subhashini | 3 Mar 2003 19:15
Picon

Re: (M2PA) Another change to the state machine diagram -- Rcv Rdy or PO during PROVING

The addition of two new states "Aligned Not Ready" and "Processor Outage"
are mentioned only in State Transition diagram. But those changes are not
discussed in sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4. If the description is present in
these sections also, it will be very clear. This is a suggestion.

thanks,
Subhashini ...

----- Original Message -----
From: <jeffrey.craig <at> tekelec.com>
To: <sigtran <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 7:29 AM
Subject: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Another change to the state machine diagram -- Rcv
Rdy or PO during PROVING

> Hello All,
>
> I suggest that another change be made to the M2PA state machine
> diagram to clarify treatment of received LSPN, LSPE, LSR, and
> LSPO during PROVING. Receiving any of these messages during
> PROVING results in no state change.
>
> The diagram below includes this change, along with all of the
> other changes I've proposed recently.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Manjunath | 3 Mar 2003 08:40
Picon

Re: [m3ua]-AS-SG

hi Brein,

For the following question posted by srimivas you quoted the following
reply....

>An ASP can be a part of different ASs. Similarly, Can a SGP be a part of
different SGs?

>--Srini

> > Sure.  But from the viewpoint of an ASP, the SGP belongs to one SG.  If
an
> > SGP were to perform the function for two SGs for the same AS, the ASP
> > would
> > have to form two associations with the SGP: one for SG-A, the other for
> > SG-B.
 [ Sibi] Is it because the Network appearance(NA) is insufficient to
distinguish between
     the messages destined to the SG's(A or B) , When the NA is insufficient
to route ,
     then each SG's serving the same network for the same AS needs an
establishment
     of an individual assosciation between the AS and SG...
 Am i right??

thanks
sibi/manju

> > The SGP would also need some way of knowing (e.g. static port
allocation)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brian F. G. Bidulock | 3 Mar 2003 09:10
Favicon

Re: [m3ua]-AS-SG

Manjunath,

See the definition of SGP and SG, see Figure 5, and read section 1.3.2.4.

--brian

Manjunath wrote:                                                                 (Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:10:19)
> hi Brein,
> 
> For the following question posted by srimivas you quoted the following
> reply....
> 
> >An ASP can be a part of different ASs. Similarly, Can a SGP be a part of
> different SGs?
> 
> >--Srini
> 
> 
> > > Sure.  But from the viewpoint of an ASP, the SGP belongs to one SG.  If
> an
> > > SGP were to perform the function for two SGs for the same AS, the ASP
> > > would
> > > have to form two associations with the SGP: one for SG-A, the other for
> > > SG-B.
>  [ Sibi] Is it because the Network appearance(NA) is insufficient to
> distinguish between
>      the messages destined to the SG's(A or B) , When the NA is insufficient
> to route ,
>      then each SG's serving the same network for the same AS needs an
> establishment
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
sasidhar | 3 Mar 2003 20:45
Picon

M3UA ASP Id

Brian,

   What was the consensus regarding the assignment of ASP Id. ?.

Can we have different ASP Ids for the same ASP in different ASes ?.
(As per RFC, this is still possible)

or

Should we have the same ASP Id. for an ASP, irrespective of the ASes being
served?.

--Sasidhar
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Brian F. G. Bidulock | 3 Mar 2003 11:46
Favicon

Re: M3UA ASP Id

sasidhar,

sasidhar <at> axes-mach01.usa.alcatel.com wrote:                                       (Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:45:38)
> Brian,
> 
>    What was the consensus regarding the assignment of ASP Id. ?.
> 
> Can we have different ASP Ids for the same ASP in different ASes ?.
> (As per RFC, this is still possible)

Yes.

> 
> or
> 
> Should we have the same ASP Id. for an ASP, irrespective of the ASes being
> served?.

Yes.

Unless someone really sees a need to have an ASP have different ASP Ids
for different AS (I cannot imagine any benefit from that), the IG could
say (borrowing your words):

  An ASP SHOULD have the same ASP Id, regardless of the AS being served.

--brian

--

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
ksrinivas | 3 Mar 2003 13:05
Picon

Re: Re: M3UA ASP Id

Brian,

"Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:

> sasidhar,
>
> sasidhar <at> axes-mach01.usa.alcatel.com wrote:                                       (Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:45:38)
> > Brian,
> >
> >    What was the consensus regarding the assignment of ASP Id. ?.
> >
> > Can we have different ASP Ids for the same ASP in different ASes ?.
> > (As per RFC, this is still possible)
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > or
> >
> > Should we have the same ASP Id. for an ASP, irrespective of the ASes being
> > served?.
>
> Yes.
>
> Unless someone really sees a need to have an ASP have different ASP Ids
> for different AS (I cannot imagine any benefit from that), the IG could
> say (borrowing your words):

The benefit of having different ASP Ids will be in assigning the Ids. Each AS can assign its own Id to an ASP by
making sure that all the Ids within the AS are unique. The ASP UP need not contain ASP Id parameter in this case.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Barry.Nagelberg | 3 Mar 2003 15:24
Favicon

Re: [m3ua]-AS-SG

Javier and Ken,

I think that Tolga's explanation of why an SGP cannot be part of different 
SGs is excellent and should be in the next version of the IG. The 
explanation is not trivial and is not stated anywhere in the RFC:

"In the messages that are exchanged between ASPs and SGPs there is no 
parameter with which to correlate the message to a specific SG. The 
Routing Context parameter in these messages indicates the source or 
destination AS, not the source or destination SG. The messages are sent 
to/from a specific SGP, and the SG is implicitly indicated by the selected 
SGP."

Barry Nagelberg

Tolga Asveren <tolga_asveren <at> yahoo.com>
Sent by: sigtran-admin <at> ietf.org
 03/01/2003 04:36 AM

 
        To:     sigtran <at> ietf.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [Sigtran] [m3ua]-AS-SG

Barry,
--- Barry.Nagelberg <at> radisys.com wrote:
> Tolga,
> 
> Please tell us where in the RFC or IG it is stated
> that an SGP cannot be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brian F. G. Bidulock | 3 Mar 2003 17:24
Favicon

Re: [m3ua]-AS-SG

Barry.Nagelberg,

I disagree with the statement.  There are plenty of parameters
that an implementation could use to decide which SG:  SLS for
example.  The purpose of SLS is even to select between
symmetrical nodes in the SS7 network and it appears in the M3UA
DATA message.

It is not for lack of a parameter that this would not normally
be done.  It is for lack of a practical purpose.  It is also an
operational consideration with no place in the RFC (unless in
the appendix).

--brian

Barry.Nagelberg <at> radisys.com wrote:                                         (Mon, 03 Mar 2003 09:24:56)
> Javier and Ken,
> 
> I think that Tolga's explanation of why an SGP cannot be part of different 
> SGs is excellent and should be in the next version of the IG. The 
> explanation is not trivial and is not stated anywhere in the RFC:
> 
> "In the messages that are exchanged between ASPs and SGPs there is no 
> parameter with which to correlate the message to a specific SG. The 
> Routing Context parameter in these messages indicates the source or 
> destination AS, not the source or destination SG. The messages are sent 
> to/from a specific SGP, and the SG is implicitly indicated by the selected 
> SGP."
> 
> Barry Nagelberg
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian F. G. Bidulock | 3 Mar 2003 17:26
Favicon

Re: Re: M3UA ASP Id

ksrinivas,

ksrinivas wrote:                                                                 (Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:35:14)
> Brian,
> 
> "Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:
> 
> > sasidhar,
> >
> > sasidhar <at> axes-mach01.usa.alcatel.com wrote:                                       (Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:45:38)
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > >    What was the consensus regarding the assignment of ASP Id. ?.
> > >
> > > Can we have different ASP Ids for the same ASP in different ASes ?.
> > > (As per RFC, this is still possible)
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > Should we have the same ASP Id. for an ASP, irrespective of the ASes being
> > > served?.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Unless someone really sees a need to have an ASP have different ASP Ids
> > for different AS (I cannot imagine any benefit from that), the IG could
> > say (borrowing your words):
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane