Re: 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 checks 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 traffic 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.
   
   
  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.
   
  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.

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