RE: Upper boundary of Adaptation Layers

Stanislav,


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Stanislav Ivanovich
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 11:37 AM
To: SIGTRAN
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] Upper boundary of Adaptation Layers


Brian, Tolga,

Brian, are you saying that SCCP-user function is not owner of the management
of its resources, i.e. user function does not own control if/how/when it can
withdraw from the traffic?

For example an SCCP-user application in ISDN networks installed in an
SCCP-subsystem has to do certain checks when and how and if it can withdraw
from the traffic, and another SCCP-user application in WCDMA networks
installed in an SCCP-subsystem performs other checks different from the
first ones. So these cheks cannot be part of SCCP and for this reason ITU-T
puts it in SCCP-user applications by introducing N-STATE_request primitive.
Are you saying that SUA layer (which should replace SCCP) should own command
which is to remove an SCCP-user from traffic (i.e. generate ASP_INACTIVE
message)? If so how do you make your SUA box/layer application independet
since each application has its own chec! ks and actions performed when
withdrawing from the traffic?


Tolga, I read your comments on the question posted on 4th of November by
Prasad Shashank at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg05292.html and
answers from you at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg05295.html and
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sigtran/current/msg05297.html.

I completely agree with you but in order to make it clear I just want to
make it more explicit:

1) Is the user application the entitiy which sends tr! affic from a local
ASP/IPSP or it is in xxUA "box/layer" responsiblity which is to be
indepednet on applications and which decides which local (!) IPSP/ASP to
use.
In other words is it that you have one application supported by xxUA
box/layer and within this xxUA box/layer you have 2 or more local IPSP/ASP
processes and it is then in this xxUA box/layer responisbility to chose
right ASP/IPSP?

In my view you install an application in a process and when this applicaton
clone generates traffic it is unambiguous which local ASP/IPSP to use since
the local process is application resource (clone). Please confirm or deny my
understanding.
[TOLGA]Yes, I agree with your interpretation. It probably is not wrong from
SIGTRAN point of view to build a system with the other approach but I don't
know why one would like to do that.


2) In my view xxUA is not a box/layer but only a set of protocls (ASP-SGP
and IPSP-IPSP). ASP/IPSP is a user application entity own and controlled by
the application. However possibly being wrong I need answer on this -> is
it! true that xxUA specifications manadate (!) that there must (!) be a
layer/box which is to own control on which local ASP/IPSP to use when
sending traffic.

3) I kindly ask you to comment SUA example above and Brian's point about the
fact that applications do not own control on their wiothdrawal from or
statrting of traffic.
[TOLGA]For that issue, I think similar to the clarifications stated in the
list by Brian.

many thanks and regards/ stanislav



"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]> wrote:
Stanislav,

Stanislav Ivanovich wrote: (Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:27:17)

---X-snip-X---
>
> M-ASP_ACTIVE request
> Direction: LM -> SUA
> Purpose: LM requests ASP to send an ASP Active message to its peer.
> M-ASP_INACTIVE request
> Direction: LM -> SUA
> Purpose: LM requests ASP ! to send an ASP Inactive message to its
> peer.
>
> Is this an RFC fault?

No. SCCP also requires local management. N-STATE request is not an
SCCP/SCCP-User primitive. It is an SCCP/SCCP Management primitive.

--brian

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





Yahoo! Photos
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,
whatever.