Re: SG view of the ASP

Barry,

It was not me, see the mail archive.

--brian

Barry Nagelberg wrote:                                               (Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:53:50)
> Brian,
> 
> The only arbiter of consensus is the spec, not you.
> 
> Barry Nagelberg
> Adax, Inc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:40 PM
> To: Barry Nagelberg
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SG view of the ASP
> 
> 
> Barry,
> 
> It was nevertheless agreed by consensus.
> 
> --brian
> 
> Barry Nagelberg wrote:                    (Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:31:47)
> > Tolga,
> >
> > You are making this up. There is no statement in the spec such as "ASP/SGP relationship/state machines are kep on each
> > SGP separetly".
> >
> > Barry Nagelberg
> > Adax, Inc.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > Behalf Of Tolga Asveren
> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:55 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SG view of the ASP
> >
> >
> > Krishna,
> >
> > Your expectation is how it is supposed to work. ASP/SGP relationship/state
> > machines are kep on each SGP separetly. In your example, both SGPs are
> > interacting with a single ASP, and from their point of view, it is the only
> > ACTIVE ASP.
> >
> >    tolga
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > > Behalf Of Munnaluru, Krishna
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:35 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SG view of the ASP
> > >
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > This is how it is affecting my expected behavior.
> > >
> > > Note: Currently I have only one ASP but in future I intend to add a
> > > standby ASP. Hence I use the trafficmode=override in the messages. Also
> > > the desired behavior is that the ASP to laodshare the traffic going to
> > > the SG among the two SGPs.
> > >
> > > The problem showed up during the following scenario:
> > >
> > > The ASP comes up, establishes associations and sends ASP UP message
> > > (ASPIdentifier = 10007) to both SGPs for which the SGPs respond with ASP
> > > UP ACK.
> > >
> > > The ASP sends ASP ACTIVE (trafficmode=override) with a routing context
> > > for the AS to the SGP1 and the SGP1 responds with ASP ACTIVE ACK. The
> > > status on the SG shows that the AS is active on SGP1 and inactive on
> > > SGP2.
> > >
> > > Later the ASP sends ASP ACTIVE (trafficmode=override) with the same
> > > routing context to the SGP2 and the SGP2 responds with ASP ACTIVE ACK.
> > > The status on the SG shows that the AS is active on SGP2 and inactive on
> > > SGP1. I was expecting the AS to be active on both SGPs since the ASP had
> > > sent ASP ACTIVE to both SGPs.  This was not what I was expecting.
> > >
> > > The explanation given by the Third party SG team is that since they
> > > treat association from SGP1 to ASP as one ASP (ASP1) and the association
> > > from SGP2 to ASP as a separate ASP (ASP2), they are over writing the
> > > status when the SGP2 received the ASP ACTIVE message from the ASP. They
> > > suggest that I put the trafficmode=loadshare and that would solve the
> > > problem.  So I am really confused.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Krishna
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:15 AM
> > > To: Munnaluru, Krishna
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SG view of the ASP
> > >
> > > Krishna,
> > >
> > > How is the behaviour different?
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
> > > Munnaluru, Krishna wrote:                       (Thu, 09 Feb 2006
> > > 10:23:19)
> > > >
> > > >    Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    I  am implementing ASP and we are trying to interop with a third
> > > party
> > > >    SG. The following is the scenario.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    We  have  one  ASP  and  one  SG  containing  two  SGPs.  The  ASP
> > > is
> > > >    establishing  one  SCTP  association  with  each  SGP  (a total of
> > > two
> > > >    associations).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    The problem is that the SG is treating each association as a
> > > different
> > > >    ASP.  So it thinks that there are two separate ASPs in the network.
> > > Is
> > > >    this  the  correct  behavior?  My  understanding is that the SG
> > > should
> > > >    treat  it  as  "two associations to the same ASP (from each SGPs)"
> > > and
> > > >    NOT "as two separate ASPs".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    Could someone please comment on this behavior?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > >    Krishna
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Sigtran mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://www.openss7.org/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sigtran mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> 
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran

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