RE: ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field

John,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 8:55 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> All three modes can be combined - the interworking field tells
> what a specific implementation does.  A specific node may or
> may not support all modes.
>
> Brian said:
>
> >> The signalling gateway capability, SS7 interworking and relay
> >> capabilities can be combined into any process (ASP, ISPS, SGP).
>
> I think the key word is 'can' - it doesn't mean all nodes MUST support
> all capabilities.
[TOLGA]I want to emphasize the difference between "node" and "process". A
SIGTRAN node may act as different process types but from SUA point of view
those are different entities. There is no doubt that one can have different
process types in a signle node. In the light of this, are you saying that
SUA is "process-type agnostic" because any type of functionality can be
provided by any process type? Then, why do we have different process types?
>
> John
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email protected]
> >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Ilie Glib
> >Sent: 19 December, 2005 15:39
> >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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>