Re: M3UA notify message
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sigtran |
|---|---|
| Organization | http://www.openss7.org/ |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tolga,
Tolga Asveren wrote: (Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:53:30)
> > >
> > > > There are not contradicting statements.
> > > [TOLGA]Let me try to summarize what I find as weak explanation in the
> > > specification:
> > > >From the passage I quoted before:
> > > The SGP
> > > or IPSP then MUST send a Notify message ("Alternate ASP_Active") to
> > > the previously active ASP in the AS, and SHOULD stop traffic to/from
> > > that ASP.
> > >
> > > I would expect here "SG SHOULD stop traffic to/from that ASP"
> > not "The SGP".
> > > Similar not-so-clear statements are all over 4.3
> > >
> >
> > An SG does not route traffic: and SG is a logical grouping of SGP.
> > SGP(s) route traffic.
> [TOLGA]To be constructive, let me suggest this:
> "SGPs which are part of the same SG"
Sure, edit that phrase into all the statements in section 4.3, post the
resulting text to this list as a proposal, and let's see how it reads. ;)
>
> BTW, do you have any opinion on why not all ASPTM is not using the global-AS
> view, e.g. why an ASP should send ASPAC to all SGPs?
Because (except in the case of override) ASPAC starts traffic between an
ASP and an SGP on a specific association. Do you not believe that it is
a good thing to be able to control traffic on an association?
--brian
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/