RE: SE-IPSP definition

Brian,
Can I remind you that the definition of IPSP is:
   IP Server Process (IPSP) - A process instance of an IP-based
   application.  An IPSP is essentially the same as an ASP, except that
   it uses M3UA in a point-to-point fashion.  Conceptually, an IPSP does
   not use the services of a Signalling Gateway node.

Thus your mention of IPSP acting as an SGP is not according to spec.
Considering that definition, your statement:
> In SE mode,
> it was never intended that both sides behave like an ASP at the same
> time.  That is DE mode.
is not reflected in the spec - thus the confusion.

Pete


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 10 November 2005 10:23
> To: Holland, Peter Michael (Peter)
> Cc: 'Tolga Asveren'; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SE-IPSP definition
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Holland, Peter Michael (Peter) wrote:            (Thu, 10 Nov 
> 2005 09:50:12)
> 
> --X--snip--X--
> > 
> > So you agree that it does not work so well when both ASs 
> have a redundant 
> > architecture - loadshare or override?
> > I don't understand why you refer to this as a pedantic 
> requirement - it is
> > an architectural/implementation robustness requirement in 
> some situations.
> > 
> --X--snip--X--
> 
> It is pedantic because an IPSP does not need an ASP Traffic Mode to be
> redundant.  When acting like an SGP, the peer IPSP can distribute
> traffic in accordance with the way that an ASP distributes messages to
> the SGP that make up an SG.  The SE-IPSP acting in SGP mode does not
> require an "ASP Traffic Mode".
> 
> Traffic Mode (the parameter) is an ASP concept.  Is is only 
> useful to an
> SE-IPSP in so much as the SE-IPSP is behaving like an ASP.  
> In SE mode,
> it was never intended that both sides behave like an ASP at the same
> time.  That is DE mode.
> 
> --brian
> 
> -- 
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>