RE: Recommendation for SUA modifications

Lincoln,

Yes, actually the reason you mentioned is really an important one. Once we
go down to SCTP level mechanisms, all M3UA messages will be handled equal
from congestion point of view. OTOH, a M3UA mechanism would enable us to act
based on the importance/semantics of different M3UA messages.

     Thanks,
     Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haresign Lincoln [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 11:29 AM
> To: Tolga Asveren; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> I agree with you.  There are many scenarios where it is not a good idea
> to shutoff all data flow between ASP and SG.  We want to shut off or
> reduce peer to peer data messages associated with a specific ASP.  Only
> a peer-to-peer message will handle that scenario.
>
> Regards,
> Lincoln
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Tolga Asveren
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 11:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications
>
> Brian,
>
> As far as I can see, SCTP congestion may not be good enough for cases:
> a)Where there are I/O bound operations on ASP as part of application
> logic -depending on latency on I/O operation, application can declare
> itself congested, rather than waiting SCTP to detect it- b)If ASP-M3UA
> and ASP-Service Logic are on different hosts/cards/blades etc..
>
> For both of those cases, congestion will probably propogate down to the
> SCTP level eventually, but it can be detected and SG can take proper
> action earlier. Actually I believe even for the generic case,
> application can detect congestion earlier than SCTP for most of the
> situations and I think to have the option to communicate this as early
> as possible is a nice thing to have.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Tolga
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > Behalf Of Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 10:46 AM
> > To: Tolga Asveren
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications
> >
> >
> > Tolga,
> >
> > What were the scenarios where SCTP flow control (arwnd) do not work?
> >
> > Could you detail them?
> >
> > I would like to capture them in my congestion draft.
> >
> > --brian
> >
> > Tolga Asveren wrote:                            (Fri, 14 Oct 2005
> > 09:34:42)
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > On the big picture I agree with you that SSNM is meant to be
> > used for SS7
> > > network management, hence SCON is supposed to be used for SS7
> > > congestion procedures. OTOH, there is a need to notify congestion
> > > status
> > of ASPs to SG
> > > and right now it seems like we don't have a solution -actually
> > till now the
> > > supposed solution was relying on SCTP congestion but there are
> > > scenarios where this is not enough/does not work well-. I believe
> > something needs to
> > > be done to address that issue.
> > > a)Either a new ASPTM
> > > b) or overloading SCON
> > >
> > >     Thanks,
> > >     Tolga
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.openss7.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>