RE: ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field

Hello,
   
  I fully agree with Tolga on these fundamental views on the AS/RC concepts and his view on the SUA relay.
   
  On the other hand acceptance of the Brian's view on this issue (AS/RC concepts in SUA relay) ultimately leads to the disappearance of the conceptual difference between the different signaling process types.
   
  What we heard today from Brian is that any process can do anything, namely ASP, IPSP, SGP can all do gateway, relay host applications - and at the same time we have different procedures and process types copy/pasted form M3UA etc...
   
  We also heard from SUA people that definition of processes is Operating System matter (!?!) so there is no need to define/clarify ASP/IPSP/SGP...
   
   
  I would like to see/know what is the official procedure in IETF (or SIGTRAN) that is to be called when there are conceptual differences/misunderstandings on some issues between the members. Is there any "voting" here?
   
  / Stanislav
   
  

Tolga Asveren <[email protected]> wrote:
  Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] ASP Capabilities value 0x2 of interworking field
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
> (Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:04:36)
> >
> > +-------+
> > | 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.
>
> There is no different on the wire between SE IPSP and ASP/SGP
> with or without
> relay as regards ASPSM and ASPTM messages.
>
> The only difference on the wire for Relay is SNMM messages. (A
> relay can send
> them even if you view it as an ASP or IPSP.)
[TOLGA]O.K., finally we are at the root cause of the disagreement. You think
that SE-IPSP and SGP/ASP procedures are the same, I think the opposite.
SGP/ASP is a client/server relationship, where SGP hosts the SCCP logic for
the application on ASP, IPSP/IPSP is a direct, peer-to-peer relationship
between two applications.
>
> Diffences not perceivable from the wire are implementation details.
>
> --brian
>
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>



_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran