RE: ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field
"Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <6117ACCB57BFD4118C0C00508BB1B920068D30B4@II3004EXCH001U> |
Ilie, I too have the same confusion and still continue to have. My understanding on what the RFC 3332 said and NOT what it did NOT. And I believe that most of the folks also have the same confusion esp. wrt IPSPs. Even the 3GPP standards has recommended to use M3UA in a certain flavour, which really do NOT fall in line, with the inputs from this mailing list. And that's the reason I am pressing for the M3UA authors/contributors to redefine IPSPs, to the least. Hope someone is listening !!! shashank -----Original Message----- From: Ilie Glib [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:09 PM To: Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sigtran] ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field Shashank, Brian, If Brian's statement is not just a play, then why all these ASP, SGP, IPSP definitions at all in SIGTRAN standards? Ilie On 12/19/05, Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brian, > This is an important statement that defines IPSPs. > > And, if all of the SIGTRAN community feels the same, I feel that this SHOULD > be explicitly stated while defining IPSPs. This definition is completely > missing from the specs and has led to a lot of confusion about the > definition of IPSPs. > > > The current definition states as follows, which is extremely confusing. > The IPSP definition, from the specs, means that IPSP is similar to ASP only > (not SGP). > And that it does NOT use SGPs while communicating with other IPSPs. > > The RFC 3332 has a seperate definition of IPSP, SGP and ASP as follows: > > 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. > > Signalling Gateway Process (SGP) - A process instance of a Signalling > Gateway. It serves as an active, backup, load-sharing or broadcast > process of a Signalling Gateway. > > > We should explicitly write that IPSP can be an ASP or an SGP. > > > shashank > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On > Behalf Of Brian F. G. Bidulock > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 6:07 PM > To: Ilie Glib > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field > > > Ilie, > > The signalling gateway capability, SS7 interworking and relay capabilities > can be combined into any process (ASP, ISPS, SGP). > > --brian > > Ilie Glib wrote: (Mon, > 19 Dec 2005 13:17:19) > > Brian, > > > > I am sorry I was not clear enough. My claim was > > > > Registration Request (REG REQ) cannot be sent from an SGP, therefore > > the value 0x2 indicating signalling gateway capability is meaningless, > > unless IPSP and SGP functions can be combined in one Signalling > > Process. > > > > Can an SGP act as an IPSP? > > > > > > Thank you > > > > Ilie > > > > > > On 12/19/05, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ilie, > > > > > > Ilie Glib wrote: > (Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:39:07) > > > > Brian, > > > > > > > > could you please answer the following questions > > > > > > > > 1) Can SG register via RKM? If not, why the value 0x2 that indicates > > > > Signalling Gateway? > > > > > > You are confused. 0x2 indicates signalling gateway capability: i.e., > > > the registering node has an SS7 network interfaces and behaves as an > > > SG when interworking to that interface. > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Is there any difference between capabilities 0x0 and 0x1 in SUA > > > > > > > > 0x0 indicates no interworking with SS7 Networks. > > > > 0x1 indicates IP Signalling Endpoint (ASP), interworking with SS7 > > > > networks. > > > > > > Yes, one supports interworking with SS7 networks and the other does not. > > > > > > > > > > > I was more after a definition of the Relay capability in SUA > > > > framework. Although SUA RFC mentions Relay and describes it, the > > > > definition of Relay is missing. > > > > > > See SCCP specifications for a definition of a relay node. > > > > > > --brian > > > > > > -- > > > Brian F. G. Bidulock > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.openss7.org/ > > > > > -- > Brian F. G. Bidulock > [email protected] > http://www.openss7.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Sigtran mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran >