RE: ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field

Brian,

-just replying your comments, which matter-

[..snip..]
> > I believe it is clear that b) is supported by all process
> types, i.e. ASP,
> > SGP and IPSP
>
> No, not all SUA SGPs host applications.  Just as not all STPs
> support SCCP users.
[TOLGA]The point is that they *CAN*, and I think you agree with this. I am
not saying that all SUA entities MUST host local applications but they are
able to do so.
>
> >
> > For a), it is obvious that SGP supports it. ASP seem supporting
> it. In that
> > case, what is the difference between SGP and ASP from provided
> functionality
> > point of view? Why not call both of them SGP?
>
> No, not all SUA SGPs support relaying.  Just as not all STPs act
> as an SCCP relay.
[TOLGA]Again the point is that they are able to do so based on the
specification.
>
> The SUA SGP, by definition, does c), interfacing with
> conventional SS7 newtorks.
>
> >
> > If IPSP is supporting a), what is the difference between IPSP and SGP or
> > ASP?Much more importantly than that, if one considers that IPSP
> is a direct
> > relationship between 2 applications, how can one justify the concept of
> > SUA-level relay for IPSP, this would mean that one does not
> have a direct
> > connection between applications and why one shouldn't use ASP-SGP-ASP
> > configuration(first figure below)? Shouldn't relay be performed on
> > application layer, if such a need exists for IPSP case(second
> figure below)?
>
> You are still thinking MTP.  Consider that you have an all-IP network with
> not SS7 network interworking from the perspective of SCCP and SUA:  Where
> are you going to place your GTT so that you can administrate your network?
[TOLGA]SGPs.
>
> Your first diagram would restrict GTT to be located at a node
> supporting SS7
> network interworking, the SGP.  In an all-IP network there is no
> need for an
> SGP, so that configuration is too restrictive.
[TOLGA]A SGP does not need to have SS7 interface. You put it there, if you
need to acces conventional SS7 network.
>
> In your second diagram, SCCP GTT is performed by SCCP or in the
> all-IP case
> the SUA layer relay function.  No SCCP-User performs this
> function and it is
> not possible to have the "application" or SUA-User perform the
> relay function.
> (The interface lacks the primitives.)  Therefore, requiring an
> application to
> do the relaying at IPSP2 is too restrictive.
>
> What SUA does is permit the relaying capability to be added to any node in
> the network (including ASP2 in your diagram below), allowing
> flexible placement
> of the GTT function within the SUA network.
[TOLGA]I am not sure that it is just GTT based routing. It seems that 1.4.6
is speaking of pure PC+SSN based relaying as well -where a node receives a
message with destination address PC+SSN and relays it-.
>
> >
> > (I use ASP/IPSP to refer to the corresponding M3UA stack
> instances in the
> > figures below)
> >
> >   +-------+                 +-------+
> >   | App1  |                 | App2  |
> >   +-------+                 +-------+
> >   | ASP1  |                 | ASP2  |
> >   +---+---+                 +---+---+
> >       |                         |
> >       |                         |
> >       |       +------+          |
> >       +-------+ SGP1 +----------+
> >               +------+
> > 1- Relaying on SGP1
> >
> >
> >  +-----+       +-----+        +-----+
> >  |App1 |       |App2 |        |App3 |
> >  +-----+       +-----+        +-----+
> >  |IPSP1+-------+IPSP2+--------+IPSP3|
> >  +-----+       +-----+        +-----+
> > 2- Relaying on App2 (not in IPSP2 M3UA stack)
> >
> >
> > AFAICS, asking IPSP2 M3UA stack to perform relaying is to push
> application
> > layer functionality to M3UA stack (it will be M3UA stack which
> decides when
> > to activate/deactivate RKs, the correlation/coupling between
> different As
> > etc...)
>
> Well, no, it is the same story for the "Transfer Function" as it is for
> "SCCP Relay".  It would be a simple matter to add ASP Capabilities to M3UA
> and permit transfer nodes to send SNMM.
>
> --brian
>
> >
> > >
> > > Do you feel that we need to be more precise about this?  I don't
> > > think that the 'process' has normative value in most RFCs.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>