Re: AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3UA

Ilie,

It does not say that the SGP cannot have a different AS Table per
association.

--brian

Ilie Glib wrote:                                                      (Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:51:12)
> Brian
> 
> what you say (RC values must be unique per AS within IPSP - IPSP
> relation and SGP-ASP relation) MUST be clarified in both SUA and M3UA
> RFCs.
> 
> Currently the RFCs do not define exactly the scope of uniqueness of RC values.
> 
> In fact they do and for instance SUA RFC says in Chapter 1.2 Terminology
> 
>    Routing Context - An Application Server Process may be configured to
>    process traffic within more than one Application Server.  In this
>    case, the Routing Context parameter is exchanged between the SGP and
>    the ASP (or between two ASPs), identifying the relevant Application
>    Server.  From the perspective of an SGP/ASP, the Routing Context
>    uniquely identifies the range of traffic associated with a particular
>    Application Server, which the ASP is configured to receive.  There is
>    a 1:1 relationship between a Routing Context value and a Routing Key
>    within an AS.  Therefore the Routing Context can be viewed as an
>    index into an AS Table containing the AS Routing Keys.
> 
> The last sentence is especially interesting and in fact backs my
> statement that a Signalling Process shall have as many RCs as there
> are remote SUA peers (ASes) it serves.
> One could draw a similar conclusion from M3UA definitions.
> 
> Ilie
> 
> On 12/20/05, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ilie,
> >
> > No, RC assignment is no different than M3UA: it only needs to uniquely
> > identify a traffic flow within an association.  When there is only one
> > traffic flow per association, RC can be trivial (i.e. 0).
> >
> > Nevertheless, the sender of ASP Active need not include RC, ASP Active
> > Ack has a mandatory RC value which both peers can populate every subsequent
> > message requiring an RC.
> >
> > --brian
> >
> > Ilie Glib wrote:                                                      (Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:19:18)
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > According to SUA RFC the RC value shall be unique (at least) within a
> > > Signalling Process, thus one RC value per "signalling relation" is
> > > needed. Consequently a Signalling Process shall have as many RCs as
> > > there are remote SUA peers (ASes). So one value is certainly not
> > > enough.
> > >
> > > Ilie
> > >
> > > On 12/20/05, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Ilie,
> > > >
> > > > There is little difference between RC=0 in every message and an
> > > > optional Routing Context parameter.
> > > >
> > > > --brian
> > > >
> > > > Ilie Glib wrote:                                                      (Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:06:15)
> > > > > Hello Brian,
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI the RC is mandatory parameter in SUA traffic messages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ilie
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/20/05, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > Stanislav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stanislav Ivanovich wrote:                                                       (Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:20:21)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    Brian,
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are never required to assign RC to traffic flows between any SUA entities.
> > > > > > When no RC is assigned, and the association handles only one traffic flow,
> > > > > > it is optional in all messages.  Don't use it if you don't see a use for it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilie
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > http://www.openss7.org/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ilie
> >
> > --
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.openss7.org/
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Ilie

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/