RE: ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field

Shashank,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank)
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 8:48 AM
> To: 'Ilie Glib'
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field
>
>
> 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 !!!
[TOLGA]There is one effort going on I am aware of. I believe we should be
able to see the initial results in a few days.
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>