Re: Recommendation for SUA modifications

Lincoln,

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                                                           (Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:23:16)

--X--snip--X--
> 
> [lincoln]: Can you explain what you mean by multiple point codes.  Are
> you in multiple networks, or are you a primary point code with alias
> point codes?  If you are multiple point codes, I'm assuming that the NA
> will handle that scenario.

NA cannot help.

> [lincoln]: You may consider it trivial.  I disagree.  If I'm deploying
> 100 ASPs behind my SG, I need to provision each one of these
> unnecessarily.  And additional provisioning sometimes results in
> operator error.

Assigning a point code is no greater a task than assigning IP addresses.

> [lincoln]: Certainly an ASP doesn't have to include a point code in the
> address.  In the case when the SG is a single point code, having the AS
> behind the SG have to specify the point code is redundant and
> unnecessary.  Especially if the AS are using GTT when addressing
> messages.

Yes, I think we will make in mandatory.  Even with GT, the messages must
be addressed to a point code to identify which SCCP is to perform GTT.
Also passive monitoring of the protocol is assisted by it.

> [lincoln]: Again, you call it miniscule, I see it differently.  These
> adjectives have no meaning.  Either it is required, or it is not.  In
> SOME network architectures, it is redundant and therefore unnecessary.

Putting the point code in the message is no more difficult that putting
the IP address in the IP header.  Don't expect SUA to assist you with
your aversion to datafilling a single point code at the ASP.

--brian


-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/