Re: DRN and TID Label Issues - Issue #2

Lincoln,

But, because it affects interoperability, must be stated as a requirement;
requiring a change to the RFC.

--brian

Haresign Lincoln wrote:                      (Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:08:46)
> Brian,
> 
> I agree, when DRN/TID routing is used, it is an extra level of routing.
> Again, it seems obvious.
> 
> Regards,
> Lincoln 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:56 PM
> To: Haresign Lincoln
> Cc: Barry Nagelberg; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: DRN and TID Label Issues - Issue #2
> 
> Lincoln,
> 
> The two sentences state that the implementation must loadshare carefully
> and according to its knowledge of the degree of state coordination
> between ASPs in the AS.  DRN/TID label conflicts with that statement in
> that is proscribed a specific method regardless of the knowledge that
> the SG implementation has of the degree of state sharing between ASPs.
> 
> The sentence needs to be modified to note that this applies to loadshare
> AS that do not have DRN/TID labels.  When DRN/TID labels are applied,
> the SG must follow the proscribed procedures.
> 
> --brian
> 
> Haresign Lincoln wrote:                                           (Wed,
> 11 Oct 2006 16:47:56)
> > Brian,
> > 
> > When dealing with loadshare, the ASPs are in control of the TID
> values.
> > I don't see the issue.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Lincoln
> >  
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:41 PM
> > To: Haresign Lincoln
> > Cc: Barry Nagelberg; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: DRN and TID Label Issues - Issue #2
> > 
> > Lincoln,
> > 
> > The last two sentences speak to Loadshare as well.
> > 
> > --brian
> > 
> > Haresign Lincoln wrote:
> (Wed,
> > 11 Oct 2006 16:31:48)
> > > Brian,
> > > 
> > > Again, I don't believe Broadcast mode is relevant to TID routing.  
> > > It seemed obvious to me.  If you feel it is necessary to specify 
> > > this in the IG, please indicate and I'm sure we can all agree on
> some wording.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Lincoln
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:43 PM
> > > To: Haresign Lincoln
> > > Cc: Barry Nagelberg; [email protected]
> > > Subject: DRN and TID Label Issues - Issue #2
> > > 
> > > Lincoln,
> > > 
> > > RFC 3868 says:
> > > 
> > > 4.1.1.  Receipt of Primitives from SCCP
> > > 
> > >    ...
> > >    corresponding SCTP association.  If more than one ASP is in the
> > ASP-
> > >    ACTIVE state (i.e., traffic is to be load-shared across more than
> > one
> > >    ASP), one of the ASPs in the ASP_ACTIVE state is selected from
> the
> > >    list.  If the ASPs are in Broadcast Mode, all active ASPs will be
> > >    selected and the message sent to each of the active ASPs.  The
> > >    selection algorithm is implementation dependent but could, for
> > >    example, be round robin or based on the SLS.  The appropriate
> > >    selection algorithm must be chosen carefully as it is dependent
> on
> > >    application assumptions and understanding of the degree of state
> > >    coordination between the ASP_ACTIVE ASPs in the AS.
> > > 
> > > These last to sentences are in conflict with the use of DRN/TID
> label.
> > > 
> > > --brian
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://www.openss7.org/
> > 
> > --
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.openss7.org/
> 
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/

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