RE: SG view of the ASP

Lincoln,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haresign Lincoln [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:02 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SG view of the ASP
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> The problem with this is that if ASP1 becomes inaccessible from SGP1,
> but SGP2 can still talk to ASP1, what should the SG send to the SS7
> network?  If SGP1 is not aware that SGP2 can still talk to ASP1, then it
> might send out an SSP.  Or am I missing something in your explanation?
[TOLGA]In such a case what I expect to happen is SGP1 to send messages it
receives from SS7 network to SGP2 so that it can send it to ASP1. Such a
mechanism -which is implementation dependent- would be necessary even if one
wants to keep a single ASP state machine in SG.
>
> There needs to be an overall view that is coordinated amoung SGPs in one
> central place in order to manage the view of the ASPs out in to the SS7
> network.
[TOLGA]That is true, but this does not mean to keep a single ASP state
machine in SG. Each SGP will have their own ASP state machines, and some
other mechanims -which is implementation dependent- will coordinate the
unique SPMC view. Such a mechanism is necessary not only to coordinate
different ASP state in different SGPs but also to aggregate the PC status as
well, if RKs in User Part granularity are used.

>
> Regards,
> Lincoln
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Tolga Asveren
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:33 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] SG view of the ASP
>
> Ooppppss a typo...
>
> ASP2 should read SGP2.
>
>    tolga
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > Behalf Of Tolga Asveren
> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:08 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email message has been scanned by Comverse mail security system
>