RE: SE-IPSP definition

Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:03 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SE-IPSP definition
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
>                    (Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:33:22)
> > 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?
>
> Because they correspond to MTP-User primitives that need to be delivered
> to the AS, regardless of whether the AS is at an ASP or IPSP.
[TOLGA]To generate those primitives AS status is enough for IPSP case
(considering the addition of ASPCONG, otherwise SCON may be necessary if
SCTP congestion is not enough).
>
> To use your words, it is required by the "Application Logic" for
> the peer to
> be able to indicate things such as MTP-STATUS.
>
> --brian
>
> >
> > Availability of remote ends is managed by the state of AS.
>
> No it cannot in all cases.  For example, if an entire PC RK is
> used between
> IPSP, the IPSP can use DUPU to signal the availabiltiy of individual user
> parts to the peer that cannot be accomplished with ASP activation state.
[TOLGA]An AS is not supposed to be partially active or inactive. It acts as
a single entity. So, the configuration you mentioned is impractical to be
used for IPSP case. If one has RK defined on PC granularity, that PC becomes
avalable/unavailable as a whole, not in bits and pieces. Please check your
reply on "M3UA User Part's Management" thread on 10/10/2005, where you
explain the situation very clearly -where you are answering a question about
managing user parts for IPSP case-:

"To provide M3UA with information about the availability
of an MTP User Part requires that the AS be no larger
than a User part.  You are runnign into difficulties
because your AS is too large.  Define an AS per user
and your difficulties should go away."
>
> Another case is where NA is used as a RK and multiple point codes
> are used at
> either end.  I know that you do not agree with this arrangement,
> but there is
> nothing in the current spec forbidding it.
[TOLGA]RC is mandatory in RKs, and RKs can't span SPMCs. This is specified
in the document.
>
> >
> > As far as I can see only SCON has a use case, and hopefully
> with ASPCONG it
> > won't be necessary as well.
>
> They all have "Use Cases".
[TOLGA]The specification does not allow them and they are not necessary
(except maybe for SCON -for now). IPSP communication relies on ASPTM. BTW, I
noticed that there is also no text chnage necessary, there is enough text in
the existing speicification disallowing SSNM -except SCON- for IPSP case.
>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>