Re: M3UA and support for multiple SGs

comments inline.

--Samuel

  Alcatel USA, Inc.                  Internet: <userid>@ssd.usa.alcatel.com
  1000 Coit Road, Plano, Texas 75075
  ******* The opinions expressed are not those of Alcatel USA, Inc. *******

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Haresign Lincoln wrote:

> To whom it may concern:
> 
> In reviewing the M3UA RFC with a couple other members of the community,
> it would appear that sub-PC routing granularity will not work if
> connecting to more than one SG.  Let's take the following example:
> 
>       AS1:                    AS2:
>      1-1-1  ISUP             1-1-1   SCCP
>      +----+                  +----+
>      |ASP1|                  |ASP2|
>      ++--++                  +++--+
>       |  |                    ||
>       |  |                    ||
>       |  |  +-----------------+|
>       |  +--+------------------+-----+
>       |     |                  |     |
>       |     |                  |     |
>     +-+-----+-------+       +--+-----+------+
>     |    SG1        |       |    SG2        |
>     |   PC = 2-2-2  |       |   PC = 3-3-3  |
>     +------+--------+       +-------+-------+
>            |                        |
>            |                        |
> 
> In this case, AS1 has routing keys of DPC=1-1-1, SI=5.  AS2 has RK of
> DPC=1-1-1, SI=3.  If, for some reason, ASP1 becomes inaccessible to SG1,
> but not SG2, then SG1 might send a UPU for PC=1-1-1, User=ISUP to the
> network.  However, this user is still accessible via SG=2.
> 
what do u mean by 'ASP1 becomes inaccessible to SG1'  ?
 1.if really ISUP user part is unavailable then it is the responsibility
   of ASP1 to broadcast UPU to all its adjecent nodes , in your case it is 
   SG1 and SG1. or in response mode ASP will send UPU.

 2.if ISUP user part is availble but there is a problem with association
   then your must not send UPU , you are supposed to send ASPSM/ASPSM
   message (say for ex ASP-INAC).
 
> The same problem might exist if the Rkeys were DPC/OPC rather than
> DPC/SI
> 
> Couple questions:
> 
> 1) Does anyone see any problems with this logic?
> 
> 2) Do you think we should mention this in the new M3UA RFC bis document
> (or some other RFC).  If so, I'd be happy to try to work on some wording
> with others.  Or is this inherently obvious to all members of the
> community and therefore doesn't require mention?
> 
> Regards,
> Lincoln
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sigtran mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> 
>