RE: Multiple SUA SGs, sending for SSP from SGs

Hello,
   
  In addition to the last mail:
   
  The original idea was to have one user function at ASP connected to 2 SGW (thus two independent SCCP/MTP layers). So in order to solve this we said -> we need an (i.e. 1) MTP/SCCP layer at ASP place which is to communicate with independent MTP/SCCP layers at SGW'es side.
   
  However here you again have one user function connected to one MTP/SCCP layer. This is exactly what the Tolga's SGP-SGP solution covers. The only difference is that ASP-SGP and IPSP-IPSP protocols do mandate use of AS concepts with all the restrictions which imply from these protocols... which we do not have in SGP-SGP protocol.
   
  So again we have very fundamental question -> what does AS/RC concept provide us with on the interface between two MTP/SCCP relay equipped processes?
   
  It brings us just restrictions and problems nothing else!
   
  / stanislav
   
  

Stanislav Ivanovich <[email protected]> wrote:
    Tolga, Brian,
   
  I see that both of you agree that in this case at ASP place we must have MTP3 (or SCCP) logic if one wants to use this configuration scenario. I think no one can question this!
   
  However the essential problem is which protocol we are to use? In my view this is the essence of the dispute. If we are to allow that ASP (or IPSP) can contain MTP or SCCP logic then the difference between the processes disappears (e.g. ASP/IPSP/SGP all can do relay/gateway/host applications) as we saw from the discussion we had last year (see thread "[Sigtran] AS concepts and Relay in SUA and M3UA" starting from December 14th 2005). So why then different protocols (ASP-SGP and IPSP-IPSP in SE and DE flavors)?
   
  However, according to Tolga's idea SG-SG protocol does support this -> i.e. MTP3/SCCP layers communicate without AS concepts in between!
   
  What is the redundancy scheme which ASP-SGP or IPSP-IPSP communication can give you and SGP-SGP communication cannot give you if in this cases ASP/IPSP'es only contain MTP3/SCCP layers (i.e. without application logic)?
   
  OTOH, I see some problems of utilizing AS concepts in between two MTP3/SCCP layers (regardless of how you call the hosting processes)....
   
  / Stanislav
   
  

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

[..snip..]
> > [TOLGA]Even for PC granularity RKs, it is SG which controls/creates the
> > unique view of the signaling enitity to the network, so one has to have
> > necessary MTP3 procedures to support that.
> >
> > BTW, I wouldn't call hosting MTP3 logic in SG as "a PC in MTP3
> stack in SG",
> > it is just providing necessary procedures to have the unique view of the
> > signaling enitity and generating corresponding network messages
> -and it is
> > the multiple clones of the same unique view on different SGs,
> which are not
> > synchronized, which may create issues for multiple-SG scenarios-.
>
> STPs do this all day long.
[TOLGA]On the practical side of how things work, I agree with you that with
multiple-SG acting as STP scenario where RKs are in PC granularity, the
possibly different views of the hosted PC are less of a problem. In such a
case hosting necessary MTP3 logic for AS maps pretty much to route
management from functionality point of view.



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

    
---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Photos
Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.
  


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
 Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!

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