Re: SE-IPSP definition
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Organization | http://www.openss7.org/ |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tolga, See Section 4.6 in RFC 3332, bottom of page 92. An IPSP will have a hard time acting as proscribed without sending SNMM. I think that your idea of IPSP is your own personal one derived from SG-SG work rather than what is described in and permitted by the RFC. --brian 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? > > 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/