| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.sigtran |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
I am still concerned about this statement from Tolga:
" In any case, it is good that there is finally consensus regarding that
ASPSM/ASPTM procedures and associated state machines being independent
on
each SGP."
If multiple SGPs are serving a single AS, then shouldn't the ASP states
also be shared across the related SGPs?
Else if I am wrong then the following statement in section 1.4.1 should
be amended to share the AS states only.
" Where an SG contains more than one SGP, the MTP3 routeset, SPMC and
remote AS/ASP states of each SGP SHOULD be coordinated across all the
SGPs."
Tolga, further considering the sahring of ASP states then, in the case
of the interoperability issue (as you depicted), the rfc says that if an
ASP is already inactive the ASP-UP message would still be respnded by an
ack.
I think the things become simpler if we consider sharing of ASP states
of a particular AS across all SGPs serving that AS.
Regards,
Prabind
-----Original Message-----
From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
Brian,
As long as it is not an ASPSM/ASPTM procedure, it is fine. I probably
was
not careful when using the term "M3UA procedures" because it includes
pretty
much everything.
BTW, I still wouldn't call it "M3UA procedure on each SGP", because SSNM
is
not sent independently by each SGP when status of a destination in SS7
network changes. It is supposed to be sent only once, but this is
besides
the point for this thread.
In any case, it is good that there is finally consensus regarding that
ASPSM/ASPTM procedures and associated state machines being independent
on
each SGP.
Tolga
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:34 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> By an SGP, making it an "M3UA procedure on each SGP".
>
> --brian
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
> (Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:10:02)
> > Yes, SSNM will be sent per SG.
> >
> > BTW, my messages from a few hours ago started just to arrive, not in
the
> > order I sent them.
> >
> > Tolga
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:26 PM
> > > To: Tolga Asveren
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
> > >
> > >
> > > Tolga,
> > >
> > > BTW it is used for sending SNMM from an SGP: another M3UA
> > > procedure at an SGP.
> > >
> > > --brian
> > >
> > > Tolga Asveren wrote:
> > > (Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:36:22)
> > > > Brian,
> > > >
> > > > Please show where in the specification it says that ASPTM/ASPSM
> > > relationship
> > > > is between ASP and SG?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Tolga
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:50 PM
> > > > > To: Tolga Asveren
> > > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tolga,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tolga Asveren wrote:
> > > > > (Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:28:21)
> > > > > > Barry,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me retry to explain my position:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Coordination of AS/ASP is necessary to create the unique
> > > SPMC view. This
> > > > > > does not mean that the coordinated state should be used for
> > > > > M3UA procedures
> > > > > > on each SGP. Each SGP should maintain its own staet machine
> > > from ASP/SGP
> > > > > > procedures point of view.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your statements conflict with the consensus that went into
> > > > > the RFC as upheld by the mailing list discussion on the
matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > --brian
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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/
>
_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran