Re: M3UA RFC 3332 - Sec 4.3.1

S,,

You say the SCCP User is blocked, but not SCCP, correct?  The SCCP-User
at IPSP-B will not send traffic to the SCCP-User at IPSP-A until it
receives SSA for the subsystem (which is currently prohibited).  If the
SCCP layer at IPSP-A receives traffic for an unavailable subsystem it
will respond with SSP.

--brian

S, Girish (Girish) wrote:                        (Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:26:18)
> Thanks Barry, Brian,
> 
> Barry, Brian and All,
> 
> I wanted to know about this specific scenario which I picked from one of the
> previous discussions sometime back where, 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 |
>          +------+          +------+
>          |  IP  |          |  IP  |
>          +------+          +------+
>              |________________|
> 
> Scenario in question is as follows,
> 1. At the bring up time, SCCP-User at IPSP-A is not ready or "blocked" by
> the operator.
> 2. Layer Management of M3UA triggers the setting up of SCTP association and
> start of M3UA procedures.
> 3. This causes an ASP Active to be sent from IPSP-A to IPSP-B, indicating
> that the IPSP-A is ready to process signaling traffic for a particular
> application server. (But the SCCP-User at IPSP-A is still "blocked")
> 
> Considering that the above sequence is to be maintained my question is, does
> the M3UA standard allow IPSP-A to make use of the "local management
> intervention" so that IPSP-A does not receive any traffic from IPSP-B until
> the SCCP-User becomes "not blocked" ? 
> 
> Section 1.4.5 of RFC 3332 says, 
> 
> "Local Management at an ASP may wish to stop traffic across an SCTP
> association to temporarily remove the association from service or to perform
> testing and maintenance activity. The function could optionally be used to
> control the start of traffic on to a newly available SCTP association."
> 
> Any thoughts ? 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Girish 

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