Re: M3UA notify message

Tolga,

I think you need to look at that mail thread, where you agreed
to the opposite when the RFC was formed.

--brian

Tolga Asveren wrote:                                                 (Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:44:56)
> Brian,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:20 PM
> > To: Tolga Asveren
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
> >
> >
> > Tolga,
> >
> > The concensus, to which you agreed, was that each SGP maintains
> > its own ASP state, but that AS state is shared across the SGP
> > making up an SG.  That is, when notification of AS state is given,
> > it is consistent for all SGP in the SG.
> [TOLGA]I agree with the first part but disagree with the second part. Notify
> procedures seem to be between ASP/SGP based on what it stands in the RFC. It
> is true that SG needs to form a uniqie view of SPMC for the AS but I
> wouldn't think this corresponds to following SGP/ASP procedures on a SG-wide
> basis. I consider Notify procedures as part of the SGP/ASP relationship
> based on 4.3.4.5.
> >
> > If this were not the case, each SGP would form its own SG.  Part
> > of the fundamental purpose of an SG is to coordinate AS state,
> > both towards the SS7 network and towards the ASPs serving an AS.
> [TOLGA]I don't agree exactly with the last statement about SG coordinating
> AS state towards ASPs. SG just aggregates the SPMC state towards SS7
> network. Each SGP maintains its own relationship with ASPs. It is true that
> SGPs, which are  part of the same SG probably would be aware of each others
> ASP states and would have an internal mechanism to route messages between
> themselves but this kind of state sharing is not maintaining a single AS
> state in terms of following ASP/SGP procedures described in the
> specification.
> >
> > This is, indeed, as Nitin indicates, reflected in section 1.4.1.
> >
> > See the thread "[M3UA] AS state maching sharing between SGPs" from
> > May of 2001 for reference.
> >
> > Therefore, when the AS state changes (on this SG-wide basis), all
> > ASPs attached to all SGP in the SG are notified.  This is why I
> > say that ASP2 is notified by SGP2 in the original question.
> [TOLGA]I think different. 4.3.4.5 Notify procedures speaks of ASP/ASP states
> which is kept on SGPs. It also makes sense, because it is the ASP state
> which is kept in SGP, is changing and is affecting whether traffic could be
> sent/received via that SGP. that NTFY are advisory makes the situation less
> drastic, but IMO changing NTFY for the state change on another SGP is less
> than perfect.
> >
> > --brian
> >

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