RE: SUA: Message distribution among Load Shared ASPs (IPSPcase)

Saurabh,

I think if the TID problem is fixed (it was correct in the original
spec, broken in one of the earlier implementor's guides, and appears to
be fixed in the latest).  

Brian,

Perhaps I'm missing something.  Why would it not work in the multiple SG
scenario?  I'm assuming here that the ASP would use the same TID
parameter in the ASPAC message going towards both SGs.

Regards,
Lincoln

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 5:42 AM
To: Saurabh Jain
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] SUA: Message distribution among Load Shared ASPs
(IPSPcase)

Saurabh,

Saurabh Jain wrote:                              (Thu, 29 Jun 2006
13:35:52)
> 
>    Hi Brian,
> 
> 
> 
>    I  would like to understand your comment that TID/DRN label
mechanisms
>    are broken.

They cannot work in the multiple SG as STP scenario, cannot support
relay, requires modification to the SCCP or TCAP stack, has no error
recovery mechansims, can easily be specified in a logically impossible
configuration (that cannot be detected by the SG), requires paritioning
of a scarce numbering space (i.e. cannot scale), breaks TCAP error
recovery mechanisms, and a host of other reasons.

> 
>    Can you please share the reason for this.

See "SUA-09: SCCP Connections and TCAP Transactions" from Jan 2002.
See "SUA v16: TID and DRM labels" from Feb 2004.

>    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.

And it contains neither change.
See "Clarification on TID" from Oct 2005.

--brian

--
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/

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