RE: ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field
"Tolga Asveren" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[..snip..]
> > [TOLGA]What about in IP domain? The goal with the protocols is
> to define a
> > sound architecture, which allows interoperability and does not
> allow room
> > for ambiguity. IMO allowing IPSP functionality to allow
> relaying is against
> > those principles. I also want to reemphasize that here we are
> speaking of
> > different roles played by SUA stack, i.e. we can have SUA-node which can
> > both relay and use IPSP communication. What we are discussing is, where
> > those different functionalites should reside.
>
> Functional placement is an implementation issue.
To clarify what I mean, consider the following figure (SUA stands for SUA
functionalities, it does not refer to any specific implementation, e.g. it
can be one or more than one stack instance)
+-------+
| App4 |
+-------+
| SUA + +-------+ +-------+
+--+----+ | App1 | | App2 |
| SGP/ASP +-------+ +-------+
+--procedures-----+ SUA +---IPSP-------+ SUA |
+--------+--+----+ procedures +-------+
| |
SGP/ASP |
+-------+ procedures SGP/ASP
| App5 | | procedures
+-------+ | |
| SUA +---+ | +-------+
+-------+ | | App3 |
+--+----+ +-------+
| SUA +---SGP/ASP----+ SUA |
+-------+ procedures +-------+
Let's suppose for App1/App2 communication, there is no need for GTT -nor for
any other type of relay-, so IPSP procedures are used.
For App1/App3 communication we need GTT, so messages are sent from App1 to
an entity which can perform GTT and relay. For that communication SGP/ASP
procedures are used.
Let's suppose the node hosting App1 performs certain GTT functions as well
and they are used for communication between App4/App5. In this case, again
SGP/ASP procedures will be used.
This, IMO allows a clean separation between interfaces used for different
purposes.