Re: M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow

Prasad,,

Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank) wrote:                                               (Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:07:22)
> Hi Brian,
> Not really trying to "mogrify" Brian. I am ONLY trying to discuss some
> changes which shall greatly help to take advantage of the SE mode in the
> IPSP-IPSP (Point to Point) scenario.

What would greatly help IPSP would be an SG-SG IPSP instead of SE or DE.
There were long ladders of discussion at LC on RFC 3332 and Tolga even
wrote a draft.

I would far rather discuss the SG-SG model for IPSP rather than trying to
make "enhancements" to SE or DE models, which are inferior.

--brian

> 
> Except for the Traffic Mode, there is nothing that stops IPSPs to talk to
> each other using SE mode in a point to point fashion. One can use the local
> configuration of Traffic Modes and start to work in the SE mode.
> 
> However, we should take the advantage of ASPAC and ASPAC-Ack messages
> exchanges to set the Traffic Modes (overriding the local configuration). A
> change in concepts will set the IPSPs talking to each other in the SE mode.
> 
> That's what Tolga and I were discussing with :)
> I cannot expect the peer IPSPs to always support an optional DE mode..
> 
> Also, I did NOT quite understand why one would like an IPSP behave like an
> SGP.
> 
> shashank
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:17 PM
> To: Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank)
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow
> 
> 
> Shashank,
> 
> I don't think that you understand SE mode.   Take a look back in the mail
> archives for long discussions of the differences between SE and DE modes.
> SE mode uses the same semantics as an ASP/SGP connection, where one IPSP
> acts like an ASP in the exchange and the other acts like an SGP.
> 
> I find it strange that you refuse to use DE mode, yet seem to want to
> mogrify SE into DE.
> 
> --brian
> 
> Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank) wrote:            (Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:39:22)
> > Brian,
> > 
> > Replies embedded.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:24 PM
> > To: Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank)
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA: 1IPSP - multiple IPSPs traffic flow
> > 
> > 
> > Shashank,
> > 
> > The RFC is clear: the TM in the ASP Active Ack is the value that was sent
> > in the ASP Active.
> > 
> > In SE mode, the peer does not have a traffic mode.  It is acting like an
> > SGP.
> > Again, see A.2.2.
> > 
> > [SHASHANK] U are putting a lot of constraints by this statement. Ur
> > statement means that IPSP-IPSP cannot have a SE mode. This is NOT really
> > correct. Here I am trying to make some minor improvements in the M3UA
> specs
> > so that IPSPs can also use the SE effectively.
> > 
> > 
> > If you want both IPSPs to each have an AS an traffic mode, use DE instead
> > of SE.
> > 
> > [SHASHANK] This is a big contraint and not acceptable :)
> > IPSPs can surely use SE mode too between themselves (IPSPs). Moreover DE
> is
> > optional. 
> > 
> > 
> > --brian
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/

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