RE: Traffic distribution semantics

Tolga,

Your assumption is incorrect. Your concerns are a NON-issue, which will disappear once we update the RFC to reflect the
consensus expressed on the list.

Barry Nagelberg
Adax, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Traffic distribution semantics


Barry,

Based on your answer I assume you also consider them as possible
interoperability issue, which needs to be addressed by an official document.

In that case, I think we should be able to answer the questions(and
subquestions like if global AS state is used for traffic distribution, why
is ASPAC sent per SGP etc..) I asked in my first message in this thread and
should be providing an architecturally sound explanation in the RFC.

   Thanks,
   Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Nagelberg [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:52 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Traffic distribution semantics
>
>
> Tolga,
>
> Both #1 & #2 below will be a non-issue once we fix the RFC to
> clarify that the AS state is kept at a global level across
> the entire SG.
>
> I believe that there is a consensus on the mailing list, at least
> from Brian and Lincoln, that this clarification is
> necessary.
>
> Barry Nagelberg
> Adax, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:39 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Traffic distribution semantics
>
>
> Barry,
>
> If it is really implementation dependent, I 100% percently agree with you.
> The reason why I thought it could have some interoperability issues is as
> follows:
>
> 1)Traffic mode allows to effect the message distribution to ASPs. For
> example, if one ASP overrides the other one on one SGP, but not the other
> one, the traffic they are going to receive will be different, depending on
> whether the individual or global state is used in SGPs to distribute the
> traffic.
>
> 2)I believe it makes sense to send the NTFY for AS state changes based on
> the state used for traffic distribution purposes, i.e. if global state is
> used based on global state changes, if local state is used based on local
> state changes. So, depending on SG is implemented, the NTFYs received by
> ASPs will be different.
>
> IMO, neither 1) nor 2) are part of core interoperability, none of the main
> procedures will be broken. OTOH, it may create certain issues in real life
> deployments. So, I personally am also not thinking strongly that those are
> huge problems but tend to think it could be nice to have a common
> understanding.
>
>      Thanks,
>      Tolga
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barry Nagelberg [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:00 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Sigtran] Traffic distribution semantics
> >
> >
> > Tolga,
> >
> > This subject is implementation dependent and doesn't belong in the RFC.
> >
> > Barry Nagelberg
> > Adax, Inc.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tolga Asveren [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:18 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [Sigtran] Traffic distribution semantics
> >
> >
> > After much discussion in "M3UA Notify Message" thread, I got
> more confused
> > and became unsure regarding what needs to be done (I wanted to
> start a new
> > thread because I doubt many people followed it and I can't blame
> > anybody, it
> > probably should be an off-line discussion for most of the time)
> >
> > The question to be answered is who is the owner of the traffic
> > distribution,
> > SG or SGP -here as traffic distribution, I refer to traffic distribution
> > from M3UA point of view, selecting an ASP depending on loadshare
> > or override
> > traffic modes-. Practically it means, do we distribute traffic to
> > ASPs based
> > on the "global ASP states" kept SG-wide or the "local ASP
> states" kept in
> > each SGP individually? If global ASP state is used, SG would be
> > the owner of
> > traffic distribution, if local state is used, SGP would be the owner of
> > traffic distribution.
> >
> > I believe there are two main parameters to be considered:
> > a)Are traffic characteristics different on SGPs belonging to the same SG
> > b)The architectural robustness/elegance
> >
> > For a), the question to be answered is are messages coming from
> different
> > SGPs -in the context of this discussion, all SGPs in
> > consideration are part
> > of the same SG- treated in a different way at an ASP/have different
> > preference. At the first thought, my answer was "No" but I am not
> > ruling out
> > the possibility that things like geographical location could be a
> > parameter
> > here, where it would be desirable/preferrable to receive traffic from
> > certain SGPs and not so preferred from other ones, for example
> due to the
> > cost of IP routing.
> >
> > For b), the question of ownership of traffic distribution to
> ASP question
> > leads to who is the owner of ASPTM procedures. It doesn't sound
> > very clean,
> > to have different owners for traffic distribution and ASPTM. Actually
> > traffic distribution itself is an ASPTM procedure. Considering this, one
> > would expect all logical execution associated with ASPTM to
> happen at the
> > same entity. I would expect ASPSM to be executed at same entity
> > as well from
> > architectual sanity point of view. Practically this means, if SG
> > is owner of
> > the traffic distibution, why is it not owner of ASPTM (and
> possibly ASPSM)
> > as well? Why is ASPAC sent to all SGPs, rather than just to one
> > of them? One
> > could even ask why is ASPUP sent to all SGPs, rather than to only one?
> >
> > I believe, from "necessity" point of view, we need to consider
> the answer
> > for a). If the answer for a) is "characteristics are not different for
> > messages coming from different SGPs", then for b) both options are open.
> > There is no exact need to send ASPAC to all SGPs. In such a case I would
> > expect all  ASPTM procedures -including traffic distribution- to
> > be executed
> > based on the states kept per SG or per SGP but not in a
> mix-match way. In
> > this situation, my preference would be using states kept in each SGP,
> > providing a more simplistic architecture, where all ASPSM/ASPTM
> > is executed
> > in the context of a single SGP -please note this does mean disallowing
> > internal routing or not creating a uniqie SPMC view-.
> >
> > If the answer to a) is "Yes", then it seems preferrable to have traffic
> > distribution logic to use states kept in individual SGPs, because
> > this would
> > allow ASPs, to force different choices on different SGPs,
> > depending on their
> > needs. In this case I would expect all ASPTM to use states kept in
> > individual SGPs.
> >
> > Any comments/ideas?
> >
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >     Tolga
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
>



_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran