RE: Recommendation for SUA modifications

Brian,

IMHO do not remove RC from the new ASPTM. An ASP may serve multiple AS and
depending on configuration/architecture/type of applications etc.. one of
them may get congested but not the other one, e.g. M3UA-ASP is running on a
blade and is active for AS1 and AS2, application logic for AS1 is running on
a second blade and application logic for AS2 on a third blade.

   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Brian F. G. Bidulock
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: Haresign Lincoln
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Valerie Gastaud;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications
>
>
> Lincoln,
>
> Well let's ferret this out: what event causes this non-SS7 congestion?
> Is it too many messages crossing the SCTP/SUA boundary?  Too many messages
> for what component to process?  The SCCP-User?
>
> Or shall we just say that the ASP Status is used to indicate
> local congestion
> at an ASP without defining it at all?
>
> SS7 congestion is well defined, but that is its failing.  It
> needs things like
> point codes.  This "local ASP congestion" is much broader, far
> more applicable
> to IP networks.  I think we need to remove the Routing Context
> from the ASP Status
> message.  "Local ASP congestion" knows no Routing Context.  It is
> the ASP in
> general that is congested, locally.  Yes, I will remove Routing
> Context from the
> message.  So, the ASP Status will have:
>
>      ASP Congestion       Mandatory
>      Info                 Optional
>
> and the ASP Status Qry will have:
>
>      Info                 Optional
>
> Then the ASP need only respond with one ASP Status when the SG
> sends one ASP
> Status Qry.  This is good.  Actually do we need the Info field?
> I suppose we
> could make the ASP Congestion field optional as well (when absent
> it would indicate
> no congestion).
>
> --brian
>
> Haresign Lincoln wrote:                      (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:25:18)
> > Brian,
> >
> > The ASP congestion that I am referring to is the same congestion we have
> > spoken about all along.  The SUA layer is detecting congestion.  I don't
> > think I can specify this any clearer due to the fact that congestion
> > detection is typically an implementation dependent feature.
> >
> > The bottom line is that ASP is congested at a layer above SCTP.  What
> > type of text are you looking for?  Actually, I think the text in the
> > existing RFC is fine:
> >
> >    The SUA layer at an ASP or IPSP MAY indicate local congestion to an
> >    SUA peer with an SCON message.
> >
> > Of course if the WG decide to go with a new message, we can change it to
> > whatever the new message is.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lincoln
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>