RE: Recommendation for SUA modifications

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 12:03 PM
> To: Haresign Lincoln
> Cc: Tolga Asveren; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Recommendation for SUA modifications
>
>
> Licoln,
>
> Haresign Lincoln wrote:
>                  (Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:36:11)
> > Brian,
> >
> > 1) if multiple ASPs or AS can use the same association, this is a
> > scenario where you wouldn't want to use SCTP flow control.
>
> Your right again!  The SUA specification is deeply flawed.  It currently
> only allows 1 ASP per association.  It needs to be enhanced to
> allow multiple
> ASPs per association.  That should be possible with an I-G entry.
>  We could
> just add the ASP Id parameter to all the messages so that the SGP
> can distinguish
> between all the ASPs on the association.  Hey!  Why not multiple SGPs per
> association too!  We could use the ASP Id in all the messages in the other
> direction.
[TOLGA]I think to use more than one association for multiple ASPs deserves
some discussion. As a first question, why do we need multiple ASPs traffic
on a single association? I know the "P" in ASP stands for "process" but OTOH
practically it maps to a host -at least as far as I can see-. My opinion
about that one is to be more cautious and if possible move forward with 1:1
relationship between M3UA peer:SCTP association in the context of ASP
congestion draft.