Re: SE-IPSP definition

Tolga,

I an not talking about SNMM used to indicate the status of remote point
codes, etc.  I am talking about SNMM used to indciate the status of local
point codes, etc. for the sending IPSP.

Also, it might not be necessary (in all cases), it might not even be very
useful (in some cases), but it is currently not prohibited.

--brian

Tolga Asveren wrote:                                                                 (Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:39:43)
> For everybody interested in that topic, I would suggest also to read
> "1.4.3.2 SS7 and M3UA Interworking at the SG" and "1.4.3.4 IPSP
> Considerations".
> 
> "1.4.3.4 IPSP Considerations
> 
>    Since IPSPs use M3UA in a point-to-point fashion, there is no concept
>    of routing of messages beyond the remote end.  Therefore, SS7 and
>    M3UA interworking is not necessary for this model."
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:33 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SE-IPSP definition
> >
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > [..snip..]
> > >
> > > All SSNM messages are applicable to IPSPs.  No change is required.
> > [TOLGA]I couldn't disagree more. Could you please tell why they
> > are needed?
> >
> > Availability of remote ends is managed by the state of AS.
> >
> > As far as I can see only SCON has a use case, and hopefully with
> > ASPCONG it won't be necessary as well.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

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