RE: M3UA notify message

Prabind,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:20 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
>
>
>
> 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.
[TOLGA]So are you claiming that there won't be an interoperability issue
according to the message flow I sent? Please look to steps marked with (1)
and (2). If one uses a global AS/ASP state which is SG-wide for ASPSM/ASPTM
procedures, interoperability issues will arise. OTOH, with NTFY, there is no
such danger, afterall it is just advisory.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>