Re: Multiple Streams and mutiplex terminations

Hello Christian,

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/megaco/current/msg08470.html

Regards,

Javi


El 02/11/2011 0:48, Christian Groves escribió:
> Hello Javi,
>
> Which forum is this being discussed in?
>
> Regards,
> Christian
>
> On 1/11/2011 10:36 PM, Javi wrote:
>> Hello Christian,
>>
>> Please see my comments below.
>>
>> Regards,  Javi
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> b) "ISDNTerm/BA17/[TEI 1]" may be transported on HDLCPW1 but 
>>>> ""ISDNTerm/BA18/[TEI 1]" may be transported on HDLCPW2. How would 
>>>> you model this?. You would need to indicate the termination name in 
>>>> the properties:
>>>>
>>>> ISDNTerm/BA17
>>>> StreamID=1(TEI=[1,6],SAPI=16)\
>>>>                               \   ---- HDLCPW1
>>>> ISDNTerm/BA18                  \ /     StreamID=1 
>>>> (TEI=[1-ISDNTerm/BA17,9-ISDNTerm/BA19],SAPI=16)
>>>> StreamID=1(TEI=[1],SAPI=16) ----*
>>>>                                / \
>>>> ISDNTerm/BA19                 /   ---- HDLCPW2
>>>> StreamID=1(TEI=[9],SAPI=16)  /         StreamID=1 
>>>> (TEI=[6-ISDNTerm/BA17,1-ISDNTerm/BA18],SAPI=16)
>>>>
>>> [CNG] I suspected we'd end up at this case. It sounds like you're 
>>> trying to turn a single Context into an entire router to get around 
>>> the fact that you can't have a single physical termination in 
>>> multiple contexts. Have a look at H.248.64 to see how we handled 
>>> that for an IP router. How many more Terminations do you envisage in 
>>> a Context?
>>>
>>> You could add TerminationID to the TEI parameter, but if you're 
>>> having lots of Termination it may quickly become complicated.
>>
>> [Javi] Each MG may have over 50000 interfaces/terminations.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [CNG] Yes, so why do you propose a single Termination? Why not add 
>>>> the interfaces via multiple Terminations to the Context?
>>>>
>>>> [Javi] Yes. Indeed, this woud be my solution to the problem: Create 
>>>> an ephemeral termination for each flow, including flows of HDLCPWs:
>>>>
>>>> ISDNTerm/BA17/D/SAPI16,TEI1 --- * --- HDLCPW1/BA17/D/SAPI16,TEI1
>>>>
>>>> ISDNTerm/BA17/D/SAPI16,TEI6 --- * --- HDLCPW2/BA17/D/SAPI16,TEI6
>>>>
>>>> ISDNTerm/BA18/D/SAPI16,TEI1 --- * --- HDLCPW2/BA18/D/SAPI16,TEI1
>>>>
>>>> ISDNTerm/BA19/D/SAPI16,TEI9 --- * --- HDLCPW1/BA19/D/SAPI16,TEI9
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this is possible.
>>> [CNG] A ephemeral Termination for an ISDN termination? These are 
>>> typically physical terminations.
>>
>> [Javi] Really, for each interface I would create:
>>
>> + A physical termination maintained in the null context: to notify 
>> new packet calls to the MGC.
>>
>> + An ephemeral termination for each packet flow on the interface.
>>
>> ISDNTerm/BA17/D [null context]
>>
>> ISDNTerm/BA17/D/SAPI16,TEI1 --- * --- HDLCPW1/BA17/D/SAPI16,TEI1
>>
>> ISDNTerm/BA17/D/SAPI16,TEI6 --- * --- HDLCPW2/BA17/D/SAPI16,TEI6
>>
>> ISDNTerm/BA18/D [null context]
>>
>> ISDNTerm/BA18/D/SAPI16,TEI1 --- * --- HDLCPW2/BA18/D/SAPI16,TEI1
>>
>> ISDNTerm/BA19/D [null context]
>>
>> ISDNTerm/BA19/D/SAPI16,TEI9 --- * --- HDLCPW1/BA19/D/SAPI16,TEI9
>>
>> It was discussed at the forum the possibilty of creating more than 
>> one termination for each physical interface, and concluded that it 
>> was possible.
>>
>