Re: SUA: Message distribution among Load Shared ASPs (IPSP case)

Hi Brian,

I would like to understand your comment that TID/DRN label mechanisms are
broken.
Can you please share the reason for this.

The latest SUA implementor guide
draft-ietf-sigtran-sua-implementor-guide-03.txt  is still containing section
which provides clarifications on TID and DRN label.

rgds
Saurabh


On 6/23/06, Brian F. G. Bidulock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Saurabh,
>
> Saurabh Jain wrote:                           (Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:34:20)
> >    RFC  does  not  talk  about  message distribution for IPSP nodes.
> (the
> >    corresponding section for IPSP Considerations is missing)
> >    This would mean that DRN and TID label are applicable only between
> ASP
> >    and SGP and would not be sent between two IPSP nodes.
>
> In an RFC when it doesn't say anything it does not mean that you cannot
> do a thing, it means that you can.  You are trying to read requirements in
> between the lines where none exist.
>
> >    I  want  to  confirm if, section for IPSP considerations has been
> left
> >    out  in  RFC  by mistake, or is there any specific reason due to
> which
> >    message  distribution(based  on TID/DRN labels) among loadsharing
> ASPs
> >    is not required in case of IPSP nodes.
>
> Again, because it is missing means only that there are no special IPSP
> considerations for TID/DRN labels.  It does _not_ mean that an IPSP cannot
> use them.
>
> >    NOTE:   Section 4.3.  AS and ASP State Maintenance   states that
> apart
> >    from  section  4.3.1,  4.3.2,  4.3.3,  The  remaining sections
> contain
> >    specific IPSP Considerations subsections.
>
> And for distribution there are no specific IPSP considerations...
>
> The point is rather moot as TID/DRN label mechanisms are broken anyway.
>
> --brian
>
>
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/
>

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