RE: ASP Active

Shashank,
   
  I forgot to say that the principle I quoted from the M3UA and SUA specifications seems to be good for your simple case of 2 IP resident applications that communicate directly. Why would you after all send traffic if the application cannot receive any reply? In practice communication normally goes in 2 ways.
  The problem is when one wants to build relay on MTP3 (for M3UA) or SCCP (for SUA) levels by using the AS/RC concept.
   
   
  However looking into other mails posted by you I fully agree with you to have this fundamental stuff explicitly clarified, explained in the specifications. I also vote for this!
   
  Especially since recently we heard many contradictory/absurd answers (especially from SUA people, e.g. "all the process types can act as ASP, IPSP, SGP"; "Defintion of processes is the matter of Operating Systems" etc...).
   
  Personally I think that (unlike M3UA) SUA paper is the (very) problematic one...
   
  / Stanislav
   
  

Stanislav Ivanovich <[email protected]> wrote:     Shashank,
   
  Both M3UA and SUA in the same section 4.3.4.3. "ASP Active Procedures" say:
   
  "By sending an ASP Active Ack message, the SGP or IPSP is now ready to receive and send traffic for the related Routing Context(s). The ASP SHOULD NOT send 
  Data or SSNM messages for the related Routing Context(s) before receiving an ASP ! Active Ack message, or it will risk message loss."
   
  Having in mind that ASP/IPSP is a process that runs one or several applications the reference above says that process ASP/IPSP is not allowed to SEND traffic on behalf of application A1 externally represented with RC1 if the process has not activated itself in for the A1 by sending RC1 to the SGP (or IPSP).
   
  In other words the application A1 is dead within the process ASP/IPSP thus cannot send traffic until the process has activated itself for the AS1.
  &nb! sp;
  Change of this very fundamental principle that AS is both sink and source at the same time in the xxUA specifications would cause many other changes (i.e. it is not just one paragraph I pointed to...).
   
  / Stanislav
   
  

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Prasad, Shashank S (Shashank)
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 2:34 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Sigtran] ASP Active
>
>
> I had a question related to ASP Active message and the definition of AS:
>
> The section 3.7.1 says:
>
> The ASP Active message is sent by an ASP to indicate to a remote M3UA
>! ; peer that it is ready to process signalling traffic for a particular
> Application Server.
>
>
> And I read from the specs, that an Application Server can be a a virtual
> switch element handling all call processing for a unique range of PSTN
> trunks, identified by an SS7 SIO/DPC/OPC/CIC_range. Another example is a
> virtual database element, handling all HLR transactions for a
> particular SS7
> DPC/OPC/SCCP_SSN combination.
>
> In this context, here is the question:
> Let's assume that we have the following stacks at the both the ends.
>
>
> ******** IP ********
> *IPSP-A* *IPSP-B*
> ******** ********
>
> +------+ +------+
> |SCCP- | |SCCP- |
> | User | | User |
> +------+ +------+
> | SCCP | | SCCP |
> +------+ +------+
> | M3UA | | M3UA |
> +------+ +------+
> | SCTP | | SCTP |
> +------+ +------+
> | I! P | | IP |
> +------+ +------+
> |________________|
>
>
>
> When the IPSP-A sends an ASP Active to IPSP-B, does it mean that the SCCP
> ONLY (at Node A) is ready for receiving signaling traffic or even the
> SCCP-User/Application (at Node A) is ready for Signaling traffic.
>
> I believe that ASP Active was sent to receive the SCCP (at Node A) traffic
> from NodeB. However, there can be a scenario wherein, at the same
> time, the
> SCCP-User (at Node A) is NOT ready to send and receive traffic from NodeB.
[TOLGA]For practical purposes, I would say that ASPAC declares readines of
the application, i.e. SCCP-User in your example. OTOH, I would think from
M3UA point of view, it wouldn't matter whichever interpretation you pick but
receiving messages with no application to process them is probably not very
useful.
>
> Let me know if this interpretation is fine.
>
> shashank
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>



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


    
---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping _______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran




		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

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