RE: SG view of the ASP

Bary,

I was maybe not clear from english language point of view.

What I tried to say is:

There is SGP1 and SGP2 and ASP1. SGP1 and SGP2 are part of SG1. SGP1
interacts only with a single ASP, i.e. ASP1. ASP2 interacts only with a
single ASP, i.e. ASP1. Each SGP keeps their own state machine tables for
ASPs. Because each of them has only a single ASP in their lists, that ASP
will be the only ACTIVE ASP from both SGP point of view.

    Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Barry Nagelberg
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:17 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SG view of the ASP
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> You are contradicting yourself. If "ASP/SGP relationship/state
> machines are kep on each SGP separetly", then how can
> these two separate SGPs know that they are interacting with a single ASP?
>
> 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
>