RE: M3UA notify message

Brian,

Of course associations can fail. If they fail due to a host failure, there
is no issue. Now, I assume you speak of premature failures.

Let's say, the probablity for an association to prematurely fail is p. If p
is not satisfying the requirements for a carrier grade environment, the SCTP
assocation is not fit to be used with M3UA -or one should be ready for bad
suprises-. There is nothing like something *never* fails, there is always a
probability for failure for anything, important is that it is under
tolerable limits.

But, we discussed all this in this mailing list and put something to
summarize the result:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-sigtran-m3uacons-00.txt

Specifically Sections 2 and 3 in that draft.

   Thanks,
   Tolga



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:58 PM
> To: Tolga Asveren
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] M3UA notify message
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> Tolga Asveren wrote:
>    (Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:12:12)
>
> > >
> > > ASP1 ------------- SGP1 (sctp association established and
> ASP1 inactive)
> > >
> > >
> > > ASP2 ------------- SGP2 (sctp association established and
> ASP2 inactive)
> > [TOLGA]One would need associations between ASP1/SGP2 and
> ASP2/SGP1. I don't
> > think this is something horrible, on the contrary, I believe
> this is a good
> > thing to provide host redundancy. Otherwise, during host failures, there
> > would be internal traffic routing unnecessarily, e.g. consider
> > n=1/loadsharing traffic mode with your diagram, if ASP1 fails, all SS7
> > traffic from SGP1 first needs to be routed to SGP2, so that it can reach
> > ASP2, if there were an assocaition from ASP2 to SGP1, this wouldn't be
> > necessary-.
>
> There has never been a requirement for full-mesh associations in the UAs.
>
> (And associations _can_ fail.)
>
> --brian
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>