Re: Clarification in Loadsharing Traffic for 2+1 model
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Organization | http://www.openss7.org/ |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Barry, Saraswati should have mentioned that the questions apply to IUA. --brian Barry Nagelberg wrote: (Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:18:48) > Saraswati, > > Q1: This is an internal (or actually, a network architecture) implementation decision - you won't find an answer in the > RFC. A third option for this case, which you didn't mention, would be to send an SS7 msg back to the sender, indicating > that the destination is unavailable. > > Q2: Again, the RFC is not intended to architect the entire network solution. This is an implemenation decision. > > Barry Nagelberg > Adax, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Saraswati Bose > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:28 AM > To: Brian Bidulock; sigtran > Subject: [SIGTRAN] Clarification in Loadsharing Traffic for 2+1 model > > > Hi Brian, > Help in the below for TM=2 and redundancy=2+1 > > Q1:Three ASPs (ASP1,ASP2,ASP3) in 2+1 configuration serving an AS. > ASP3 in INACTIVE state. > ASP1 and ASP2 are in active state and handling traffic. > > Now if ASP2 moves to inactive state then notify" insufficient ASP resources" is sent to ASP3. > In this situation if any ULP data is received at the SG for the AS what the SG should do??? > Option1: Send data to ASP1? > OR > Option2: Buffer data until number of active ASPs=n? > > Q2: What if after the above notification ("insufficieant ASP resources") is received at the AS end no ASP initiates > ACTIVE procedure? The RFC is ! not clear about it . > > Saraswati. > > > Yahoo! Shopping > Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping > > > _______________________________________________ > Sigtran mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran -- Brian F. G. Bidulock [email protected] http://www.openss7.org/