RE: M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow
"Tolga Asveren" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Shashank, > -----Original Message----- > From: Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:56 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: 'Tolga Asveren' > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow > > > Tolga, > I picked up an old discussion thread that I had with u. > > What specifically did u mean, when u said - implementation dependent ? > Did u mean local configuration ? [TOLGA]Not really. In your example, it was the M3UA-user which was performing loadsharing, i.e. deciding to use IPSP2 or IPSP3. So, loadsharing will be done based on an implementation dependent mechanism in M3UA-User, it has nothhing to do with M3UA itself. > > And what did u mean by Traffic Type ? > Did u mean that IPSP1 can send ASPAC to the 2 IPSPs with Traffic Type as > Loadshared ? > If YES, then this would really not help because IPSP2 and IPSP3 > (illustrated > below) are different entities by themselves. [TOLGA]I was referring to type of traffic, e.g. SCCP class1, 800-number lookup query etc.. The characteristics of traffic type would determine the implementation dependent message routing mechanims in M3UA-User. > > > > shashank > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On > Behalf Of Tolga Asveren > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:51 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow > > > This is implementation/traffic type dependent and is not something > standardized by M3UA. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank) [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:28 AM > > To: 'Tolga Asveren'; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow > > > > > > Thanx Tolga. U are right in understanding my question. > > > > Followup Question: > > Since IPSP2 and IPSP3 are serving the same AS, what would determine at > > NodeB, if the traffic to IPSP1 is > > to be sent via IPSP2 or IPSP3 ? > > > > > > shashank > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On > > Behalf Of Tolga Asveren > > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 8:13 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow > > > > > > Shashank, > > > > As far as I understand your question: > > > > You have IPSP1, IPSP2, IPSP3. You have one RK. IPSP sends ASPAC > > for this RK > > to IPSP2 and IPSP3. IPSP2 and IPSP3 are working in loadsharing > > mode. You are > > wondering whether IPSP1 will receive traffic from both IPSP2 and IPSP3. > > > > Yes, it can, but I wouldn't call it traffic being loadshared to > > IPSP1. IPSP2 > > and IPSP3 are not the same entities. OTOH it makes sense to speak of > > loadharing traffic from IPSP1 to IPSP2 and IPSP3 because traffic from a > > single source is distrubuted to multiple peers. > > > > Tolga > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On > > > Behalf Of Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank) > > > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:48 AM > > > To: '[email protected]' > > > Subject: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > I had a specific question related to a specific scenario > explained below > > > (Single Exchange scenario) > > > > > > NodeA supports 1 PS with 1 IPSP > > > NodeB supports 1 PS with 2 IPSPs in Loadshared mode. > > > > > > > > > There are two associations between NodeA and NodeB. > > > The first association is between IPSP1 (NodeA) and IPSP2 (NodeB). > > > The second association is between IPSP1 (NodeA) and IPSP3 (NodeB). > > > > > > The IPSP2 and IPSP3, which are serving loadshared for the PS2 > on NodeB, > > > send an ASP Up to IPSP1 serving for PS1 on NodeA. Which means > > > that IPSP2 and > > > IPSP3, > > > serving a loadshared PS2, are essentially telling NodeA to > > > loadshare all the > > > traffic > > > for PS2, between IPSP2 and IPSP3. > > > > > > The above concepts are also illustrated below....(I have purposefully > > > avoided AS-ACTIVE notification) > > > > > > > > > > > > NodeA <------------NodeB------------> > > > > > > PS1-IPSP1 PS2-IPSP2 PS2-IPSP3 > > > | | | > > > |<-----ASP Up------------| | > > > |-------ASP Up Ack------>| (Assoc #1) | > > > | | | > > > | | | > > > |<--------------------ASP Up------------------------| > > (Assoc #2) > > > |----------------------------ASP Up Ack------------>| > > > | | | > > > | | | > > > | | | > > > |<--ASP Active(Ldshr)----| | > > > |------ASP Active Ack--->| | > > > | | | > > > | | | > > > | | | > > > |<--------------------ASP Active(Ldshr)-------------| > > > |----------------------------ASP Up Ack------------>| > > > | | | > > > | | | > > > |---NOTIFY(AS-ACTIVE)--->| | > > > |--------------------------NOTIFY(AS-ACTIVE)------->| > > > | | | > > > > > > > > > > > > Questions: > > > Assuming a single exchange scenario, would the traffic towards > > > PS1 on NodeA, > > > > > > be also loadshared across 2 associations ? > > > > > > I thought it would and hence another follow-up question: > > > It looks like a loadshared peer (NodeB in our case) with > > multiple IPSPs, > > > is putting a constraint on the NodeA, to ALSO be ready to > > receive data on > > > multiple associations and possibly loadshared. Is this a fair > > > understanding > > > ? > > > > > > > > > shashank > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sigtran mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sigtran mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sigtran mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran >